"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.

As with all questions regarding God, most likely the best answer(s) can be found in Christ and his example.

If we are to take literally when CHrist said that he doesn't do anything but what he's seen his Father do.... then it would be logical that God the Father was at one point as Jesus was when he was mortal, and also was before Christ gained a mortal, physical, body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest mormonmusic

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?

Good question Prisonchaplain. This has been on my mind for a long time.

On this whole issue of doctrine, my understanding is there is a process by which new doctrine is accepted in the Church. Generally acceptance by the First Presidency, and a sustaining vote by the membership, Doctrine is normally canonized in our scriptures. That is the probably the narrowest definition of what is doctrine in our religion -- what is contained in our scriptures.

The first half of the couplet isn't in the scriptures as far as I know.

However, I think very few members of the Church even realize this process of accepting doctrine or distinguish between doctrine, cultural values, and mere opinions of Church leaders. So, the statements of the prophets (even the unusual ones, like some of Brigham Young's assertions) get taken as doctrine for periods of Church history, as did the first half of the couplet. It doesn't appear in our Gospel Essentials manual when we describe the nature of God. Certain statements by leaders get revered for decades, and then as society's values change, or new leadership takes over, certain statements drop out of the lesson manuals, or stop getting perpetuated in Conference or talks at Church.

As a result, there are members who see some of our ideas as a starting point for arriving at their own discovery about what is doctrinal and what is not. The first half of this couplet was constantly quoted in talks when I was a new member, and accepted by almost everyone as true. But now, the first half of the couplet has been de-emphasized by a recent prophet. This highlights the importance of each person getting on their own clock about what they should and should not believe in our Church. How much of what we believe today is like the first half of the couplet?

But it has to be done with integrity....honestly, in consulatation with God. For me, much of it I just accept wholesale given testimony. But I'm never going to just accept everything blindly. One of the worst statements I've ever read uttered by a Church member is:

"After the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done".

Here is an excerpt from on article on Doctrine that I read recently by a Church member named Don L. Ashton:

What Is Official Doctrine, and How Is It Established?

One of the best-kept secrets in Mormondom is “What is Official Doctrine, and how is it established.” Church leaders seldom discuss the process, because Official Doctrine is rarely introduced. Yet Church history reveals a clearly established procedure that has been carefully followed for over 180 years. D&C 28:13 explains “all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

Only then is it binding on the membership of the Church. The change will then be made to the body of accepted (canonized) scriptures. Those occasions are:

1.1830, Bible and Book of Mormon were officially accepted with the organization of the Church

2.1835, Doctrine and Covenants, first 103 sections were officially accepted

3.1880, Doctrine and Covenants additional 32 sections were accepted along with the Pearl of Great Price

4.1890, Polygamy was repealed (Official Declaration, p. 291)

5.1976, D&C sections 137 & 138 were officially accepted

6.1978, The priesthood was made available to all worthy males regardless of race (Official Declaration 2, p. 292)

Also, in 1921 the Church removed the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants, with the explanation that they were never presented to the Church as being divinely revealed scripture. As lectures and lessons, it was determined that they simply did not measure up to standard of Official Doctrine.1

Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (2 Official Doctrine. Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

FAIR also wrote an article on this (www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_​Mormon_Doctrine.pdf) further describing the process for the creation of doctrine. They add an appeal to tradition and consistency with past beliefs when new doctrine comes forward, quoting some of the earlier prophets. I found this latter part hard to accept completely because we DO get conflicts with long-held past beliefs which means this appeal to tradition isn't always water tight. And further, it's the nature of revelation to be "new", so often new revelation represents a break with the past.

At first this may be unsettling -- that doctrine is so narrowly defined in its most official capacity. And that some of what we take for inviolate doctrine may well be mere opinion that we must seriously sift through.

But for me, it's liberating because it means I can find my own way within Mormonism...myself and Heavenly Father. And I don't have to relinquish my brain on ideas that are generally (and sometimes mistakenly) held as doctrine in the Church, when in fact they may not be.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with all questions regarding God, most likely the best answer(s) can be found in Christ and his example.

If we are to take literally when CHrist said that he doesn't do anything but what he's seen his Father do.... then it would be logical that God the Father was at one point as Jesus was when he was mortal, and also was before Christ gained a mortal, physical, body.

Unless one also "literally" believes that we will inherit all that the Father has by making it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Then it would be logical that the Father represents and possesses by virtue of His inheritance all that was done before Him, including a plan in which a Savior saved the mortal world as this plan is one eternal round being done over and over again. In other words, the Father, inherited what His Christ did for Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mormonmusic- Aren't "The Living Christ" and "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" also considered doctrine? I always thought that they went through that same process you described for becoming doctrine, but they were not listed... Just curious, as I always tell others that the Standard Works and those two proclamations are what we consider "doctrine".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mormonmusic- Aren't "The Living Christ" and "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" also considered doctrine? I always thought that they went through that same process you described for becoming doctrine, but they were not listed... Just curious, as I always tell others that the Standard Works and those two proclamations are what we consider "doctrine".

Yes, they are.

Please See The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002 - ensign

The above article references a 1916 article A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. This article was printed in response to misunderstandings within the Church at that time concerning the Character of God. It is an excellent example of modern day revelation. And interestingly enough, has revelance to the original theme of this thread.

At the bottom of the article you will find written:

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

My understanding is that against the formal definition of doctrine, the Proclamation and the Living Christ is not doctrine as it hasn't been put to the Church for a sustaining vote, nor has it been included in our scripture. I don't ever remember it being put to the Church for a sustaining vote -- was it, and when did this happen? At what conference? It may have been referred to in a talk, but can we point to the date and conference when the membership sustained the Proclamation as formal doctrine?

Regarding the article above, I scanned it, but nowhere do I find the first half of the couplet. However, I admit I scanned it. Their doctrinal exposition -- again, I see it as an explanation of the doctrine as they understand it, but that article specifically is not doctrine.

But let me say, this doesn't mean we reject all these items that are not part of the scriptures -- the fact that a prophet and quorum of Apostles have all agreed upon this is something that should make us sit up and listen. Nor do we ignore the fact that much of what they say is consistent with the scriptures and past belief on these topics. But is it official doctrine? I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that against the formal definition of doctrine, the Proclamation and the Living Christ is not doctrine as it hasn't been put to the Church for a sustaining vote, nor has it been included in our scripture. I don't ever remember it being put to the Church for a sustaining vote -- was it, and when did this happen? At what conference? It may have been referred to in a talk, but can we point to the date and conference when the membership sustained the Proclamation as formal doctrine?

Regarding the article above, I scanned it, but nowhere do I find the first half of the couplet. However, I admit I scanned it. Their doctrinal exposition -- again, I see it as an explanation of the doctrine as they understand it, but that article specifically is not doctrine.

But let me say, this doesn't mean we reject all these items that are not part of the scriptures -- the fact that a prophet and quorum of Apostles have all agreed upon this is something that should make us sit up and listen. Nor do we ignore the fact that much of what they say is consistent with the scriptures and past belief on these topics. But is it official doctrine? I think not.

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, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System responded; “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.”

... I added the bold. This is from Ensign, "I have a question" section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

And then we have a modern day prophet who goes on National television and when asked if we believe "As man is....", he softens the whole thing, saying "I don't know that we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize it" -- which to me is sounds a distance from an "acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today". It doesn't appear in Gospel Essentials any longer, which describes the fundamental nature of God, nor is it in the Doctrinal Exposition of the nature of God article that was quoted above.....sounds like a gradual distancing.

I think your comment supports my point that certain beliefs creep into the mindset of our organization, but if not fully canonized and accepted as Doctrine before the Church, gently move out of the category of Official Doctrine. For me its a case for keeping doctrine rather narrow rather than expansive, as it allows us to change as we learn certain beliefs that are accepted in some contexts prove to be untenable, or even questionable in other periods in history.

And, according to the article I excerpted earlier in this thread, the Lectures on Faith by JS were once IN the canon, and then were removed later on, which goes to show certain ideals can even be official doctrine for a while, then suddenly pass into the arena of non-doctrinal writing later. Just because a prophet said it doesn't mean it's doctrine forever.....I think the first half of the couplet is a shining example given GBH's statement on Larry King.

Again, I like all this inconsistency as it shows that we can be a thinking organization that can be open to change if we let ourselves.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System responded; “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.”

... I added the bold. This is from Ensign, "I have a question" section.

I think this depends on how loosely we want to define the word "doctrine". Perhaps, the process mormonmusic described identifies what we deem "scripture", and "doctrine" is a bit more loose than that?

I think it is also interesting when looking at the dates of the provided statements- 1921 for the one mormonmusic provided and 1971 for the one you have provided. So does that mean our understanding of what qualifies as "doctrine" has changed and been clarified? I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree that we should only call something "doctrine" if it is "official", and the 1921 statement provides the most "official" method I have ever seen. When considering the most recent comments of our leaders on this topic (Gordon B. Hinckley's statement), I would think that we are striving to go back to that core so that there is less confusion about what we teach.

Whatever the case, I know that this is something that is rarely openly discussed and that many members now may have never even heard. The very basic general idea that we can become "as God" is certainly well known, as is the supposition that we will be able to be creators of our own worlds, but it is something that is always vaguely referenced and actual church materials never go into very much detail (aside from, of course, the comments of earlier prophets like Joseph Smith's KFD, which I have constantly been told is not doctrine). Everything current on the topic is vague and open to interpretation. So, I've always been under the impression that it is something left up to personal revelation and interpretation and not considered "doctrine" of the church. While it may be true, the details are unknown and left to us to figure out for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic
Hidden

. So, I've always been under the impression that it is something left up to personal revelation and interpretation and not considered "doctrine" of the church. While it may be true, the details are unknown and left to us to figure out for ourselves.

Such is the nature of life, even in a Church which claims to have answers no one else does...this is my hard-earned conclusion after multiple, heartwrenching trials of faith and commitment.

Link to comment

aside from, of course, the comments of earlier prophets like Joseph Smith's KFD, which I have constantly been told is not doctrine.

The KFD was actually Joseph Smith's last General Conference.

I am reluctant to call anything doctrine cuz the word within the LDS Church has many connotations. Especially after McConkie's work Mormon Doctrine.

But based on the fact that it was a talk given in General Conference. That it was recorded by multiple sources. That it was The Prophet Joseph Smith giving the speech. And that it feels right and makes so much sense to me. I personally take the discourse as true.

I wouldn't dismiss it off-hand. No matter what many members have told you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Doctrine" simply means "teaching". To determine if something is a "doctrine of the Church" means to determine whether the Church currently teaches that idea.

Note that by this definition, Church doctrine can be incomplete, imperfect, perhaps even wrong. If we believe some specific doctrine of the Church to be wrong, what is our duty? It is to discuss our concerns, if we must discuss them, privately, with our leaders. Then it is our duty to shut up and keep our concerns to ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accusations were repeatedly being made about this time that President Smith was a fallen prophet. But when the mighty doctrines that in this discourse he is setting forth are taken into account, and the spiritual power with which he is delivering them is reckoned with, no more complete refutation of his being a fallen prophet could be made. The Prophet lived his life in crescendo. From small beginnings, it rose in breadth and power as he neared its close. As a teacher he reached the climax of his career in this discourse. After it there was but one thing more he could do-seal his testimony with his blood. This he did less than three months later. Such is not the manner of life of false prophets.-Note by Elder B. H. Roberts. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 355, footnote 11)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then we have a modern day prophet who goes on National television and when asked if we believe "As man is....", he softens the whole thing, saying "I don't know that we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize it" -- which to me is sounds a distance from an "acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today".

Could it be though for the same reason we would say there are some things in the temple that we don't "teach"? In other words, our line upon line learning isn't ready for this kind of thing in the general teachings of the church. Maybe this was the stance Hinkley was after. That it is not the main part of our gospel and doesn't need to be the focus of any teaching right now, "we don't emphasize it" is his clarification of "I don't know that we teach it". If it is not a doctrine then it is 'we don't believe it'.

President Kimball said this is the time to prepare to meet God. After that is when we are concerned about becoming like Him, if we are in that group to have that option I suppose.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is also interesting when looking at the dates of the provided statements- 1921 for the one mormonmusic provided and 1971 for the one you have provided. So does that mean our understanding of what qualifies as "doctrine" has changed and been clarified? I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree that we should only call something "doctrine" if it is "official", and the 1921 statement provides the most "official" method I have ever seen. When considering the most recent comments of our leaders on this topic (Gordon B. Hinckley's statement), I would think that we are striving to go back to that core so that there is less confusion about what we teach.

It is in the 2003 new testament student study guide put out by the Church, for the Philippians 1-4 section. L. Tom Perry used it in a Liahona article in May 2002. And in the 2003 student manual "Church History in the Fullness of Times" Chapter 35 put our by the church, it says that the Lord inspired Lorenzo Snow and "Shortly before Joseph Smith’s death, Lorenzo heard him teach the same doctrine. Thereafter Elder Snow made this doctrine one of the subjects of his own discourses."

... so at least it is out there as late as 2003. Couldn't find any closer than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Vort, and I am sorry if bringing this up as a discussion topic was a bad idea...

Please don't misunderstand me. I know it must sound like I was criticizing you for bringing up the topic, but really, I was not. I was speaking generally, not specifically, and certainly not about you. Forgive me if I came across as critical toward you. I didn't feel that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't misunderstand me. I know it must sound like I was criticizing you for bringing up the topic, but really, I was not. I was speaking generally, not specifically, and certainly not about you. Forgive me if I came across as critical toward you. I didn't feel that way.

It's okay. I am greatful for your thoughts, as reading them helped me look more critically at what I was writing myself. I've been receiving a lot of personal clarification lately, and my expanding understanding has been exciting me so much that I haven't necessarily been remembering to exercise caution. While most everyone here is good about discussing various topics without issue, this is a public forum, and I think we could all use occassional reminders to be careful about what we share publicly. I did not see your posts as critisizing at all, but a reminder to be careful- a reminder I needed at that moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

It is in the 2003 new testament student study guide put out by the Church, for the Philippians 1-4 section. L. Tom Perry used it in a Liahona article in May 2002. And in the 2003 student manual "Church History in the Fullness of Times" Chapter 35 put our by the church, it says that the Lord inspired Lorenzo Snow and "Shortly before Joseph Smith’s death, Lorenzo heard him teach the same doctrine. Thereafter Elder Snow made this doctrine one of the subjects of his own discourses."

... so at least it is out there as late as 2003. Couldn't find any closer than that.

See, if this manual is claiming this is doctrine, then I question if the writer knows the formal process for accepting new doctrine described earlier in this thread -- like most Church members. We have GBH's rather distancing comment about the couplet, and the fact that half the membership doesn't believe it, as Rameumpton opined.

We have been criticized as a "Church without formal doctrine" because there is a lot of teaching and training the membership to revere every word that falls from the lips of our general authorities. I think some have even gone so far as to make the erroneous statement that conference talks are "scripture for the next 6 months". Those conference talks are never canonized or the Conference issue of the Ensign put to a sustaining vote for the Church.

Also, at the last WW training when they introduced the new Church Handbook, I read a post from someone who was there. He indicated that BKP said the new CHI qualifies as revelation. Another GA got up and said it didn't. So, is it or isn't it revelation? So you see, there isn't even agreement at the top about things like this.

I find it best to go with the narrow definition of doctrine -- approved by the First Presidency & Q12, AND put to a sustaining vote by the Church.

And by the way, there are benefits to narrow doctrine. Ben Franklin in his autobiography describes how the Quakers made unequivocal statements that were anti-war, and made them part of their bedrock doctrine. And it got them into a pickle when their interests were threatened, and there was a need for money to be raised for the war. They had to resort to convoluted arguments and doing things like dropping off food to a depot and saying 'use this as you need it', without specifically donating it to the War effort, lest they violate their articles of faith. But in fact, this was what they were doing -- supporting the war effort.

Then he continues:

These embarrassments that the Quakers suffer'd from having establish'd

and published it as one of their principles that no kind of war was

lawful, and which, being once published, they could not afterwards,

however they might change their minds, easily get rid of, reminds me of

what I think a more prudent conduct in another sect among us, that of

the Dunkers.

I was acquainted with one of its founders, Michael

Welfare, soon after it appear'd. He complain'd to me that they were

grievously calumniated by the zealots of other persuasions, and charg'd

with abominable principles and practices, to which they were utter

strangers. I told him this had always been the case with new sects,

and that, to put a stop to such abuse, I imagin'd it might be well to

publish the articles of their belief, and the rules of their

discipline.

He said that it had been propos'd among them, but not

agreed to, for this reason: "When we were first drawn together as a

society," says he, "it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as

to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors;

and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From

time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our

principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are

not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the

perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if

we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves

as if bound and confin'd by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive

farther improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving

what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred,

never to be departed from."

This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of

mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth,

and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling

in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees

wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people

in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho' in

truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.

This was one of the most important parts of Ben Franklin's autobiography to me, and I think it suggests that churches should make absolute claims to narrowest extent necessary so they can grow and change without appearing to be wishy-washy about the non-negotiable/absolute truth and their bold claims of possessing it.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, if this manual is claiming this is doctrine, then I question if the writer knows the formal process for accepting new doctrine described earlier in this thread -- like most Church members. We have GBH's rather distancing comment about the couplet, and the fact that half the membership doesn't believe it, as Rameumpton opined.

We have been criticized as a "Church without formal doctrine" because there is a lot of teaching and training the membership to revere every word that falls from the lips of our general authorities. I think some have even gone so far as to make the erroneous statement that conference talks are "scripture for the next 6 months". Those conference talks are never canonized or the Conference issue of the Ensign put to a sustaining vote for the Church.

Also, at the last WW training when they introduced the new Church Handbook, I read a post from someone who was there. He indicated that BKP said the new CHI qualifies as revelation. Another GA got up and said it didn't. So, is it or isn't it revelation? So you see, there isn't even agreement at the top about things like this.

I find it best to go with the narrow definition of doctrine -- approved by the First Presidency & Q12, AND put to a sustaining vote by the Church.

And by the way, there are benefits to narrow doctrine. Ben Franklin in his autobiography describes how the Quakers made unequivocal statements that were anti-war, and made them part of their bedrock doctrine. And it got them into a pickle when their interests were threatened, and there was a need for money to be raised for the war. They had to resort to convoluted arguments and doing things like dropping off food to a depot and saying 'use this as you need it', without specifically donating it to the War effort, lest they violate their articles of faith. But in fact, this was what they were doing -- supporting the war effort.

Then he continues:

This was one of the most important parts of Ben Franklin's autobiography to me, and I think it suggests that churches should make absolute claims to narrowest extent necessary so they can grow and change without appearing to be wishy-washy about the non-negotiable/absolute truth and their bold claims of possessing it.

What other sustaining vote do we need other than the sustaining vote we give for our leaders?

If one of our main doctrine is that of the possibility for eternal progression, this doctrine does not take away from its narrowness by much. The thing is, this doctrine doesn't contradict any other doctrine and throughout the history of the church, I don't see it changing by another opposing doctrine.

How the world sees us or "appearing" wishy-washy is something I don't think we should be too worried about. Overall, I think LDS are pretty well educated about what there doctrine is and it stays consistent amongst various congregations compared to members of most religions. That sounded really prideful but I am just saying the gospel doesn't vary from place to place around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

What other sustaining vote do we need other than the sustaining vote we give for our leaders?

Too carte blanche. They make big mistakes sometimes, and further, it's just way too much of a wild card to give all leaders everywhere the power to make doctrine as they speak. And, as we have seen, there is a formal process for establishing doctrine in the Church, and it doesn't involve sustaining leaders -- it involves agreeing with the doctrine. So, in asking this question, you are proposing we change the formal process for accepting doctrine in the Church.

If one of our main doctrine is that of the possibility for eternal progression, this doctrine does not take away from its narrowness by much. The thing is, this doctrine doesn't contradict any other doctrine and throughout the history of the church, I don't see it changing by another opposing doctrine.

You are confusing the first half of the couplet (As man is...) with the second half (man may become). I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the second half of the couplet as doctrine. This is well supported in our scriptures. It's the first half that we are discussing here.

How the world sees us or "appearing" wishy-washy is something I don't think we should be too worried about.

To some extent, yes, but whether people say it or not, the perception of your target group, or the group you are leading is often a consideration when establishing a course of action. But I think certain bold, unequivocal claims we have may well be things we want to change in the future. It's much easier to justify a change in policy than a change in a fundamental doctrine, particularly when we are taugth prophets will "never lead us astray".

To use the Quaker's example -- bold broad statements hurt them. If you are making the claim that you are a Church with the truth, and abide by certain principles people expect you to live those principles. If, the second personal or political interests conflict with that eternal, non-negotiable principle, you cave, you look like you have no principles at all. Members have less respect, outsiders don't see you as living by your own ethics. It hurts the organization. As it says in the Book of Mormon (Alma to Corianton) -- "When they saw your actions they wouldn't believe my words". This is because Corianton violated the principles of the Church espoused by his Dad. Imagine the consequences when we declare unequivocally that Situation X is true and inviolate, and then, reverse it when it's clear that society has enlightened to the point that situation/claim is blasphemous to society?. Do they really know what they are talking about? I would ask that question of the leaders in the Church making such wish washy statements. Now, if it's merely a speculative policy, or a theory, or something that was one man's opinion, then it's much easier to back away from the statement when it becomes evident it's not true.

Overall, I think LDS are pretty well educated about what there doctrine is and it stays consistent amongst various congregations compared to members of most religions. That sounded really prideful but I am just saying the gospel doesn't vary from place to place around the world.

I'm not really sure how this relates to our discussion, although I think it's largely a true statement. However, there are pockets of local "doctrine", which happen when an influential person gives a talk, or a compelling fireside. I've seen it before. While not doctrine, members also take it as such. But generally, we do believe the same thing everywhere. However, I don't see how this furthers the discussion on whether "As man is..." is actual doctrine, or the role leaders SHOULD take in forming member's beliefs about what is true.

Edited by mormonmusic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing the first half of the couplet (As man is...) with the second half (man may become). I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the second half of the couplet as doctrine. This is well supported in our scriptures. It's the first half that we are discussing here.

Thanks, I agree.

I am not confusing the two so much as saying that if man can become like God, then it is possible that God was man. And if it was possible that God was man then it isn't necessary that God was a Christ, a Savior by way of the power of inheritance.

I would rather believe that it just hasn't been revealed to anyone, the specifics of God's mortal existence, what role He had before and that is probably why it isn't specifically a doctrine to say that He was like any of us, maybe He was that world's Christ, I don't know, I don't think Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith really knew those specifics while here but maybe they did. The thing is that some here are trying to suggest even a deeper meaning to the pulling away from that statement by saying that God had to be a Christ before. I think that is even more of a stretch than what I am saying, that He could have been an average (younger brother) man in His mortal existence.

The difference between those two views though relates to what people think about the possibility of eternal progression. I can't separate those two issues in my mind. Either there is eternal progression or there is a limit to our progression. I don't think we can have it both ways. Then people try to rationalize that with some other doctrine about how it might be possible for all of us to someday be a Christ and be mortal again in some other world, that really strays from our accepted and sustained doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between those two views though relates to what people think about the possibility of eternal progression. I can't separate those two issues in my mind. Either there is eternal progression or there is a limit to our progression. I don't think we can have it both ways. Then people try to rationalize that with some other doctrine about how it might be possible for all of us to someday be a Christ and be mortal again in some other world, that really strays from our accepted and sustained doctrine.

Yes, this is the crux of the entire discussion.

1) Either there is a single pathway that one takes to become like God.

2) Or there are multiple ways to become like God...

3) Or there is no way that we can become like God, but perhaps we can become somekind of a god in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then people try to rationalize that with some other doctrine about how it might be possible for all of us to someday be a Christ and be mortal again in some other world, that really strays from our accepted and sustained doctrine.

I agree that given our current understanding of the Plan of Salvation, it would be impossible for us to be a "Christ" of another world. Like us, Christ did not have a body before coming to this world. He too was tried and tempted as we were. After he died, he was resurrected and reunited with his now perfected body. Though we did not live a perfect life or atone for anyone's sins, we have also received bodies and will be resurrected. To be a Christ of our own world would necessitate that we take a step backward in our progression and give up our bodies. I don't think that is the way it works...

So, I am seeing two possible meanings of the first half of the couplet:

Either God was once a "man" as we are, a "little brother" of another Christ, and we can all progress to the same state as God eventually, or

God was once a "Christ" of his own world and had to progress through the roles of the Godhood- Holy Ghost, then Christ, then God. Since we are treading a separate path than this (we can't all be Christ's of our own worlds since we've already got bodies), then our progression is different from that of God. We will still share in the inheritance of Christ and be able to be "gods", but we cannot tread the exact same path as "God".

With either of these explanations, God once took on the coils of mortality as we did so that he could receive a body and progress into perfection, but with the second option He was always a step above us and ahead of us, something greater than we could ever be due to His different path.

Then, of course, it is also possible that the first half of the couplet is wrong and there is an entirely different explanation for God's "origins". Since we do not embrace it as doctrine, it could well be that this was insightful speculation that will someday be proven wrong with further revelation.

Right now, I'm leaning toward believing the second option... but I'm still learning and pulling things together :). I don't really have a problem with our path of progression being a bit different from that of God. In fact, I tend to find it a bit more believable that our path is not exactly the same. It does not change the fact that we can still inherit all the blessings of eternity- it just changes our standing in comparison to God and the exact role that we might play in eternity. I think it is more humbling and better supports a system of "order" since not everyone can be a leader, or there would be nobody to lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand how God could have been a man. I have been looking at the Bible and the Book of Mormon and Ephesians 4:4-6 says "there is one body, and one Spirit ...One God and Father of all." and Alma 11:44 backs this up saying everything shall be restored toits perfect frame...before teh bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit which is one Eternal God." If he is an Eternal God, how could he have been a man first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand how God could have been a man. I have been looking at the Bible and the Book of Mormon and Ephesians 4:4-6 says "there is one body, and one Spirit ...One God and Father of all." and Alma 11:44 backs this up saying everything shall be restored toits perfect frame...before teh bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit which is one Eternal God." If he is an Eternal God, how could he have been a man first?

Christ was once a man, no? He was born into a mortal body, lived a mortal life, and died a mortal death, just like the rest of us. Christ is "part" of God, so if at one point being a man excludes one from being Eternal, then God is not Eternal. I believe that "Eternal" here is referencing the endless cycle- that "God" goes through each phase continuously in separate "eternal rounds" forever and ever, with no beginning and no end. Holy Ghost- Jesus Christ- and Heavenly Father - and back around again. There is no starting or stopping point, no division- it continues forever, just like a circle or the eternity symbol.

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