Do Mormons Believe God Was Once a Man?

[Guest]

FUNKY!!! Missed you!

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc,

The King Follett discourses are an interesting read, but 'God being once a man' isn't unique to the LDS faith: Baptists, Catholics and the rest all believe it. The difference is really in timing.

We believe Jesus and God are two separate individuals.

Jesus was perfect from birth.

Note that, according to the bible, being perfect does not imply he was all-knowing: Luke 2:52 says:

An increase in Wisdom shows that there were changes that took place in his earthly ministry, and increasing in favour with not just Man but God also suggests changes. As for whether God had done the same thing as His son at some point, it's possible:

John 5:19:

What does all this mean?

1) Jesus was perfect from birth. We - You, me and everyone on this board, were not perfect from birth.

2) Jesus did only what his Father in Heaven did.

3) Jesus came to Earth to fulfil all righteousness - Being baptized, etc.

If Jesus and God are separate beings, then it certainly implies he did so elsewhere, but the truth is we don't know what happened before this world or what God has planned for after this world. We have hints, suggestions and the like, but we have no absolute knowledge.

I'm always uneasy with these types of topics - Inevitably there is a ton of guesswork sprinkled with scripture. It seems too close to Priestcraft, with each person sure their interpretation is right. I believe in God. I believe in His son. I am grateful for their role in my life and their love for me.

Beyond that, I trust that God will reveal more when He's ready.

Thank you for this. You laid out your case in a very logical, careful, and kind way. I greatly appreciate that!

Coming from a Catholic background, I am can confidently say two things regarding the statements you just made:

1. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church has always taught some form of Theosis (or becoming like God or gods), although writers throughout time have had very different views within the fait.

2. The average Catholic on the street today has no idea that the Catholic Church has taught this view of man and the afterlife for centuries (and possible since the founding of the Church), which is why so many Christians today find it to be such an odd "crazy Mormon" thing to teach. In reality, as you already suggested, it's not so unique or crazy from a historical theological viewpoint.

[Blackmarch]

The title says it all.

If this is true, could someone elaborate? Also, could the question be answered: If God was once a man, who made God?

Some do, some don't, some don't care. Either way God hasn't felt it important enough for us to know with surety. Personally i think the logic (as well as the occasional glimpse and hint)points towards that he was once as Jesus was, who was a man, with a Father in his heaven and so on and so forth. If thats the case, then who was that Being, we don't know.

[The Folk Prophet]

jinc1019 - "Do Mormons Believe God Was Once a Man?"

Yes!

Do ALL Mormons believe this? Apparently not. But there's a lot of us. You can find "Mormons" who believe anything, and I mean ANYTHING. But in general, yes, this is a belief of Mormons.

jinc1019 - "If God was once a man, who made God?"

His Father.

jinc1019 - "basic logic says there has to be a creator at the beginning of time"

Maybe you need to re-examine the meaning of the words "basic logic". The very term "beginning of time" defies logic.

anatess - "Anything outside of THIS God is non-canonical and are merely extrapolations. It may or may not be true."

Not really. We know, scripturally, that Abraham has been exalted. We know scripturally that this means his seed will continue forever and that he reigns over them as their god. Whereas you are generally correct, you aren't literally correct. Moreover, it was Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets who taught this, so I'm not sure about the "be careful here" pov. How is it extrapolation to claim what prophets have taught is true?

jinc1019 - "the teaching that the God, the one in the Bible, is not really the chief architect of all that is, was, and ever will be...This, however, is absolutely a biblical principle held by all Christians and Jews since the very beginning of the faith."

If this is biblical, can you please source it, biblically speaking?

Eowyn - (concerning:We believe Jesus followed the pattern of his Father, which was to have gone through a mortal experience,) "You believe that. Many other people believe that. But it's not core LDS doctrine."

Yes it is core doctrine. But doctrine is not defined by what people believe. It is defined by what is taught, as revealed, by the prophets. This fits.

HiJolly - "As God is now, man may become >> this is clearly taught in scripture.

As man is now, God once was >> this is NOT clearly taught in scripture."

The scriptures are not the only source of revealed truths.

HiJollly - "Joseph's teaching on the subject does not rise to the level of Scripture"

Why not? Who says? Moreover, what about the other prophets who taught the same? Why should we relegate their teachings to a "maybe" status? This belief does not just come from some obscure comment by Joseph Smith. That may be the original source, but others clearly taught the same. Is their prophetic voice of no value? Was Lorenzo Snow not a prophet. Was his teaching "VERY unclear"?

HiJolly - "On a personal level, scripture is whatever the Holy Ghost attests to(this is found in the D&C). And that explains why we have so many personal viewpoints/ beliefs that don't agree with everyone else"

This may be true-ish...sort of. But whatever anyone CLAIMS to be revealed to them is certainly NOT scripture.

Blackmarch - "Either way God hasn't felt it important enough for us to know with surety."

Since when is prophets teaching it to us considered not "with surety"?

[Guest]

Is the answer to this question essential to our salvation?

[The Folk Prophet]

Is the answer to this question essential to our salvation?

Debatable. There had to be a reason it was revealed. And all knowledge is, from a certain point of view, essential to our salvation. At what point in our existence is it necessary to know something, is more the question. Certainly as a new member it may not be necessary to have the answer. On the other hand, if a new member asks the question it behooves us to answer it with truth as has been revealed. Moreover, knowing God is life eternal. How can we know God if we don't understand his nature? One could as easily ask: Is the answer to the question, does God have a physical body, essential to our salvation. That certainly isn't important knowledge to faith, repentance, obedience, etc... And yet it's a core teaching point of the true church. Seems to me that to know God we should understand that He, like us, has a Father who loved Him and that He worked out His salvation through humility and obedience, the same as we must. If this is true (which it is) then I think we should know it.

[FunkyTown]

Since when is prophets teaching it to us considered not "with surety"?

You mean like when Gordon B. Hinckley said:

I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Church. I respect your opinion. And your learning, but I am going to back President Hinckley over your word.

We can argue and philosophize on what the words mean, and those who think it means one particular thing are more than welcome to their opinion, but we have a prophet who has spoken on that. Perhaps President Monson will gain more understanding of this, but he hasn't spoken of it.

Is your vision keener than President Hinckley's? Spoken on national television?

[Guest]

anatess - "Anything outside of THIS God is non-canonical and are merely extrapolations. It may or may not be true."

Not really. We know, scripturally, that Abraham has been exalted. We know scripturally that this means his seed will continue forever and that he reigns over them as their god. Whereas you are generally correct, you aren't literally correct. Moreover, it was Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets who taught this, so I'm not sure about the "be careful here" pov. How is it extrapolation to claim what prophets have taught is true?

No. REALLY. The Prophets have not taught this in the pulpit. They may have given a talk on this outside of the pulpit which means - it is non-doctrinal and may or may not be revelation but more like what a lot of teachings by St. Thomas Aquinas has given to the world - a spiritual philosopher's philosophizing that may or may not be true.

Basically, if you are teaching this in Gospel Doctrine class, you need to stop doing so.

But yes, you may believe it because it doesn't contradict with official revealed doctrine. Just don't teach it as doctrine.

And Funky's post above gives you a clear picture of what Gordon B. Hinckley say of Mormons believing/teaching it.

The danger here is - if Thomas S. Monson would reveal a contradictory doctrine to this in the pulpit straight from God, then a lot of Mormons would get a mind-bend and would accuse the Church of changing God's doctrine in the same manner that the Catholic church got a mind-bend when Pope Benedict contradicted centuries-old Catholic view of unbaptized babies taught by Saint Augustine outside of official doctrine.

Edited January 16, 2014 by anatess

[Guest]

Thank you for this. You laid out your case in a very logical, careful, and kind way. I greatly appreciate that!

Coming from a Catholic background, I am can confidently say two things regarding the statements you just made:

1. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church has always taught some form of Theosis (or becoming like God or gods), although writers throughout time have had very different views within the fait.

2. The average Catholic on the street today has no idea that the Catholic Church has taught this view of man and the afterlife for centuries (and possible since the founding of the Church), which is why so many Christians today find it to be such an odd "crazy Mormon" thing to teach. In reality, as you already suggested, it's not so unique or crazy from a historical theological viewpoint.

Jinc... the Catholic Church STILL teach that we can become like God today. It is an integral part of the faith and is specifically addressed in Catechism.

BUT... because of the Trinitarian view of God, it holds a completely different meaning than the LDS view.

Because the Trinitarian God is a completely different substance than Man, Man can NEVER become God (our resurrected bodies will not be the God substance - it will still be the Man substance), therefore, we will not have the exact same characteristics of God that can create things. But, as exemplified by Jesus Christ who is of the Man substance that transcended death, we can be as God - in perfection.

In the LDS view - God and Man are the same substance. Therefore, Man becoming like God is EXACTLY like God - in perfection. And this is where Catholics accuse LDS of heresy.

[The Folk Prophet]

You mean like when Gordon B. Hinckley said:

Quote:

I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Church. I respect your opinion. And your learning, but I am going to back President Hinckley over your word.

We can argue and philosophize on what the words mean, and those who think it means one particular thing are more than welcome to their opinion, but we have a prophet who has spoken on that. Perhaps President Monson will gain more understanding of this, but he hasn't spoken of it.

Is your vision keener than President Hinckley's? Spoken on national television?

Since when is Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow's teachings "my word"? I didn't make this doctrine up. President Hinkley's sound-byte on a national news program is clearly a milk-before-meat response. Moreover, it does not say we don't believe it. It says we don't know much about it, which is true. But we still believe it. And saying it's a "couplet" actually has no bearing on the truth of it, which I expect Pres. Hinkley knew. He's correct. That is a couplet. Doesn't change whether it's a known principle or not. Why everyone takes a simple sound-byte like this, that doesn't actually say much of anything, and uses it to override known, clearly-taught doctrine is strange to me. Moreover, Pres. Hinkley later clarified that he knew our doctrine and that we shouldn't worry that he didn't just because of something said in a news program.

See here. 2nd question. This is clearly taught and believed by the church, as is clearly found with nothing more than a simple search and cursory review on lds.org.

Best,

C

[The Folk Prophet]

No. REALLY. The Prophets have not taught this in the pulpit. They may have given a talk on this outside of the pulpit which means - it is non-doctrinal and may or may not be revelation but more like what a lot of teachings by St. Thomas Aquinas has given to the world - a spiritual philosopher's philosophizing that may or may not be true.

Basically, if you are teaching this in Gospel Doctrine class, you need to stop doing so.

But yes, you may believe it because it doesn't contradict with official revealed doctrine. Just don't teach it as doctrine.

And Funky's post above gives you a clear picture of what Gordon B. Hinckley say of Mormons believing/teaching it.

The danger here is - if Thomas S. Monson would reveal a contradictory doctrine to this in the pulpit straight from God, then a lot of Mormons would get a mind-bend and would accuse the Church of changing God's doctrine in the same manner that the Catholic church got a mind-bend when Pope Benedict contradicted centuries-old Catholic view of unbaptized babies taught by Saint Augustine outside of official doctrine.

You're sort of responding to something other than what I had replied to you... So I'll address that first. You wrote of anything outside of THIS God. I gave scriptural references to another god and his kingdom that we know is true. That it hasn't been taught at the pulpit isn't relevant in any way.

You can have your point-of-view, of course, on what can and cannot be taught in Gospel Doctrine. But I'm pretty sure using the scriptures is ok.

Funky's post I've already responded to.

Finally, assuming most of your reply is talking about whether we believe God was once a man or not, rather than responding to the actual quotes (you: anything outside THIS God... me: What about Abraham?) then you are actually mistaken. The "couplet" has been taught over the pulpit, is taught in our lesson manuals, and can clearly be repeated in Gospel Doctrine without fear of preaching false doctrine or personal opinion.

Although this should be obvious, I'll source it so as to eliminate unnecessary back and forth:

Over the pulpit:

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop." President Spencer W. Kimball, In Conference, Apr 1977

Lesson Manual:

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011 Chapter 5

[Guest]

You're sort of responding to something other than what I had replied to you... So I'll address that first. You wrote of anything outside of THIS God. I gave scriptural references to another god and his kingdom that we know is true. That it hasn't been taught at the pulpit isn't relevant in any way.

You can have your point-of-view, of course, on what can and cannot be taught in Gospel Doctrine. But I'm pretty sure using the scriptures is ok.

Funky's post I've already responded to.

Finally, assuming most of your reply is talking about whether we believe God was once a man or not, rather than responding to the actual quotes (you: anything outside THIS God... me: What about Abraham?) then you are actually mistaken. The "couplet" has been taught over the pulpit, is taught in our lesson manuals, and can clearly be repeated in Gospel Doctrine without fear of preaching false doctrine or personal opinion.

Although this should be obvious, I'll source it so as to eliminate unnecessary back and forth:

Over the pulpit:

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop." President Spencer W. Kimball, In Conference, Apr 1977

Lesson Manual:

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011 Chapter 5

Church... "THIS God" and "God once was" support each other. They're not two different topics.

You are saying that the Book of Abraham tells of many Gods. It does and it does not. Many Gods - under one Godhead. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Altogether referred to as ONE GOD even in the very first page of the Book of Mormon.

And the phrase God once was does not reveal that God the Father has another God for a Father. That is extrapolation that is not in doctrine because, as Pres. Hinckley stated - we don't know anything about any other God but our God.

But, what Lorenzo Snow is saying is that ANYTHING man is going through, God has gone through. Whether he went through it by going through a mortal exitence with a different God as His Savior is something we cannot know is true because it is not revealed. We just know that in his experience, he has experienced the depths of joy and sorrow just as we are. But one thing is certain - we can become God.

In conclusion - THIS God is doctrine. Any other God outside of THIS God - including God the Grandfather as an extrapolation of the phrase "As man is, God once was", is not doctrine.

Clearer now?

[The Folk Prophet]

Church... "THIS God" and "God once was" support each other. They're not two different topics.

You are saying that the Book of Abraham tells of many Gods. It does and it does not. Many Gods - under one Godhead. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Altogether referred to as ONE GOD even in the very first page of the Book of Mormon.

And the phrase God once was does not reveal that God the Father has another God for a Father. That is extrapolation that is not in doctrine because, as Pres. Hinckley stated - we don't know anything about any other God but our God.

But, what Lorenzo Snow is saying is that ANYTHING man is going through, God has gone through. Whether he went through it by going through a mortal exitence with a different God as His Savior is something we cannot know is true because it is not revealed. We just know that in his experience, he has experienced the depths of joy and sorrow just as we are. But one thing is certain - we can become God.

In conclusion - THIS God is doctrine. Any other God outside of THIS God - including God the Grandfather as an extrapolation of the phrase "As man is, God once was", is not doctrine.

Clearer now?

Hi anatess. Yes, your meaning and intent is clearer. Thanks.

However we do disagree on a few points. Let me preamble that I'm not just trying to be contentious. Hopefully that comes across. I've tried to edit myself in a way so nothing comes across as hugely disrespectful, and I hope I've succeeded. If not, I apologize in advance.

On to it:

I do not agree that obvious extrapolations are non-doctrinal or should never be preached. Very many things are obvious extrapolations. We know many plain things that mean a whole lot of obvious other things that aren't explicitly said. The things they mean are clear in the primary doctrinal ideas. Decrying them as non-doctrinal is argumentative and not useful.

Also, the interpretation of the couplet that it does not mean there is a God-the-Grandfather is extrapolation as well, and, frankly, a less obvious extrapolation. It's clearly stretching an obvious idea to something less obvious in order to suit some sense of a PC Christian p.o.v.

The couplet means what it says. As you point out, "ANYTHING man is going through, God has gone through". So wherein, logically, does that not include having a father, brothers, sisters, etc...? As man is (mortal, part of an earthly family, part of a heavenly family, etc.) God once was. That's hardly an stretch. It is a literal statement. Making it non-literal, in my opinion, has the burden of proof. God was as we are. We have a Heavenly Father. So did God. He had to work out His salvation with fear and trembling the SAME as we. Inherent in that is a God, a Savior, an atonement, repentance, line-upon-line, etc.... You're interpreting that and diminishing it to suit a bias. (Once again, no disrespect intended.) That it means a mortal experience and all that comes with a mortal experience is the clear meaning.

This is even more obvious if we extend our understanding based on the King Follet discourse. Whereas I'm sure you've read it I'm posting the link just in case others are interested in easy access here. I am not arguing that it's being on lds.org makes it "doctrinal". But it is certainly a trustworthy source to help us better understand this doctrine.

So, fair enough, I admit God-the-Grandfather is extrapolation (though not my extrapolation, as explained later). I do not, however, accept the idea that believing other than what is clear and obvious extrapolation is acceptable. It's not okay to throw off obvious extrapolations that are inherent in a doctrine because of our discomfort with them. This is clear and obvious and we should believe it. The only way to argue that it is not clear and obvious is to twist meanings. ("That depends on what the definition of is is.")

And I do not believe that when asked the question, "Does God have a father?" that the correct answer is "We don't know." We have revealed truth on the matter (even though it requires some simple and obvious extrapolation) and we do understand this, even though it's become popular among some to argue that we do not.

Why is this a problem? What is it that makes us so squeamish about this? Is it just argumentative about any extrapolation? Or is it this specific idea that bugs people for some reason? Why? I'm honestly asking.

I'm not arguing that all extrapolation is valid, or that even all seemingly obvious extrapolation is valid. Interpretations that conflict with known doctrine are clearly problematic even if they seem valid. This concept (grandfather-god) does not conflict with any known doctrine. It is offensive to no one except the overly sensitive who are bound to be offended anyhow, and frankly is a pretty neat idea. Understanding that God went through what we are only seems blasphemous if one's tradition has ingrained in them that it is blasphemous. Otherwise, it is an extremely comforting and beautiful idea. Son to Father, mortal to god, seed to tree, etc., etc. How cool is that!? Short of that traditional bias, it fairly fully rings of truth and right. Not to mention that it makes perfect sense.

As to the other gods thing, we're talking past each other a bit. Abraham is another god that is not part of THIS Godhead (meaning he is not the Father, The Son, or the Holy Ghost). I take that as a clear example of other gods. Whereas it still clearly falls under the hierarchy of THIS godhead, that only contends more strongly for the ideas you're debating as non-doctrinal. If Abraham is a god, and we can become gods, then Abraham's children, upon the revealed truth to them that Abraham was once as they are, can safely extrapolate from that that we are out there somewhere as gods too, and that Abraham's father is still his God, and will be forever, glory upon glory, etc., etc. The fact that all revealed truth we have on it fits within THIS godhead does not hurt the understanding of other gods, it enhances it.

As to where the extrapolation comes from, just to be clear, I didn't make this up. From Joseph Smith:

"Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."

Mostly I'm adding this quote so it's not coming across like I'm just reasoning this out and "extrapolating" on my own. Also, to show that such extrapolation isn't necessarily problematic. And I agree with Joseph. Why are we scared to death at such a doctrine?

[FunkyTown]

Church - Extrapolation is fine. Consideration and contemplation should be done by individual members within the church.

It should be done prayerfully and it should be done with thought. I, for instance, accept every quote you've given but disagree on your interpretation of it. We are God's children. We are His inheritors. He is offering us everything he has.

This does not imply that God was not the first.

Joseph Smith says that God knows and understands everything that we have and that we've gone through. You claim this is because He has experienced having a brother and sister. If this is so, then I invite you to consider:

There is such a thing as gay relationships. Would you suggest that God's understanding of them comes from personal experience in such a thing? If not, then can you not simply port whatever explanation you have of His understanding of such a thing over to the Brother/Son situation? I am being very careful in this: I don't want to step in to the territory of treating Holy things lightly. I understand asking a question is, at the very least, confrontational. That isn't my intention - This simple question uses the extreme to show the logical extension of your argument that the only way He could understand our own dynamics is by experiencing them Himself.

What you're suggesting could be the answer. They are not necessarily. What you are doing is jumping in to pseudo-doctrine. You can state that President Hinckley's remark is a 'Milk Before Meat' response, and it might be.

But it also might not.

Dwelling on pseudo-doctrine is welcome in some circles, unwelcome in others. It can be uplifting or destructive.

I am very conservative where it comes to the doctrines of the gospel. I am firmly on Gordon B. Hinckley's side when I say, 'We don't know.'

[Guest]

FUNKY!!! You're back again! You're like ninja... one awesome post then PSHAAAW... you're gone again.

Church, Funky said what I wanted to say. But let me just add:

I grew up Catholic. Looking into the history of the Catholic Church, the only way one can remain Catholic is if one is very clear on what is doctrine and what is extrapolated teaching. This is because there are a lot of philosophical teachings that are taught by prominent figures in the Church (Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, etc. etc.) that are embraced by the membership but not doctrinal. Several times in history, teachings get thrown out by the Pontiff and everyone gets confused and a period of argument ensues where members either adjust to the ex-cathedra teaching or leave the church bitter. I retained this habit of being careful about personal extrapolation - or even extrapolations by prominent LDS figures - that are not doctrinal. The King Follet Discourse is not doctrine. This document is heavily used by anti-Mormons. The teachings within this document are either poorly interpreted by the scribe or poorly interpreted by church members. As there are no clear corresponding doctrinal teaching of the nuggets of wisdom therein, it remains a document that is good to read but not used to teach out of. There are nuggets in that document that is mirrored in doctrine - and those we teach.

A Baptist, a Catholic, and an LDS can read the exact same verse from the exact same KJV translation of the exact same Bible... all three of them can walk away with three completely different interpretations of the verse. And that's why they all claim to be Christians and yet we all follow different doctrine. Without a clear doctrinal teaching under proper authority of God's Church, it is easy to stray into error.

[FunkyTown]

FUNKY!!! You're back again! You're like ninja... one awesome post then PSHAAAW... you're gone again.

Church, Funky said what I wanted to say. But let me just add:

Thanks Ana. You're the best.

These sorts of discussions almost inevitably rely upon the book Mormon Doctrine which is, ironically, not Mormon Doctrine.

[Guest]

Church... I just want to be clear... I am not saying you are wrong. At all. Personally, I have no opinion on God the Grandfather, so I don't disagree with the extrapolation.

My only stake in this thread is jinc's Catholic background, which, when applied to LDS life, can carry a certain baggage because there are stuff that we learned as Catholics that carry over to LDS and then there are those that we have to be very careful about. And this couplet is one of those that is very tricky because half of it completely aligns with Catholic while the other half is completely against Catholic if we consider God the Grandfather as doctrinal.

But for a Catholic convert - this doesn't have to be a mind-bend because it is not necessary for us to believe in a God the Grandfather.

Did this make sense?

[The Folk Prophet]

Church - Extrapolation is fine. Consideration and contemplation should be done by individual members within the church.

Agreed.

It should be done prayerfully and it should be done with thought. I, for instance, accept every quote you've given but disagree on your interpretation of it. We are God's children. We are His inheritors. He is offering us everything he has.

This does not imply that God was not the first.

We are not meant to interpret scriptures of our own volition. That is the prerogative of prophets and apostles. That may be another thread though. Prophets and apostles have interpreted these things for us. And they all support God was once a man and that He had a father, with the ambiguous exception of Pres. Hinkley's words as reported by the press.

Joseph Smith says that God knows and understands everything that we have and that we've gone through. You claim this is because He has experienced having a brother and sister. If this is so, then I invite you to consider:

There is such a thing as gay relationships. Would you suggest that God's understanding of them comes from personal experience in such a thing? If not, then can you not simply port whatever explanation you have of His understanding of such a thing over to the Brother/Son situation? I am being very careful in this: I don't want to step in to the territory of treating Holy things lightly. I understand asking a question is, at the very least, confrontational. That isn't my intention - This simple question uses the extreme to show the logical extension of your argument that the only way He could understand our own dynamics is by experiencing them Himself.

Jesus Christ understands everything we are going through because of the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane. God the Father was as we are now. There is not an implication therein that God the Father experienced everything we did. I never said that. Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father because he has literally felt everything we go through.

I am not arguing that the reason God the Father must have had brothers and sisters is because he understands us. That's backwards at best. I'm arguing that God the Father must have had brothers and sisters because he once was as man is now.

What you're suggesting could be the answer. They are not necessarily. What you are doing is jumping in to pseudo-doctrine. You can state that President Hinckley's remark is a 'Milk Before Meat' response, and it might be.

But it also might not.

President Hinkley clarified in Conference that we should NOT look to the press reports as sources of doctrine. You're entire p.o.v. seems to stem from just exactly that.

Dwelling on pseudo-doctrine is welcome in some circles, unwelcome in others. It can be uplifting or destructive.

I am very conservative where it comes to the doctrines of the gospel. I am firmly on Gordon B. Hinckley's side when I say, 'We don't know.'

We don't know a lot about it = true

We don't know anything about it = false

These sorts of discussions almost inevitably rely upon the book Mormon Doctrine which is, ironically, not Mormon Doctrine.

This is not true. I haven't brought up a single thing from Mormon Doctrine. Though I would dare bet that in this case it does support my thinking. That doesn't mean anything. Are you claiming Mormon Doctrine is nothing but a pack of lies? :)

I grew up Catholic. Looking into the history of the Catholic Church, the only way one can remain Catholic is if one is very clear on what is doctrine and what is extrapolated teaching. This is because there are a lot of philosophical teachings that are taught by prominent figures in the Church (Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, etc. etc.) that are embraced by the membership but not doctrinal. Several times in history, teachings get thrown out by the Pontiff and everyone gets confused and a period of argument ensues where members either adjust to the ex-cathedra teaching or leave the church bitter. I retained this habit of being careful about personal extrapolation - or even extrapolations by prominent LDS figures - that are not doctrinal.

There is a significant difference between reasoning by what you are referring to as prominent LDS figures (which I will call prophets and apostles to be clear) and prominent Catholic figures. Not to the world, sure. But to someone with a testimony that this church is led by the spirit of revelation, very much so. Sure, mistakes are made. But I will give the benefit of the doubt to revelation unless it is specifically clarified otherwise. If and when the church says Joseph Smith was mistaken on this matter, then I will discard it. Otherwise, I'm going with Joseph Smith. And I would argue that it is dangerous to do otherwise.

There is also a huge difference between, "I think," and "Jospeh Smith taught". The latter is what I'm advocating. Yes, the first falls under the latter, but that's irrelevant. I'm not making stuff up and throwing out some whacko extrapolated philosophy. This was taught to me by a prophet.

The King Follet Discourse is not doctrine.

Doctrine is not a document. Doctrine is ideas and philosophies that are accepted as true. Calling a document doctrine or not has no meaning. Clearly some ideas from the King Follet Discourse are doctrine and some ideas from it are not. Blanketing the entire document as a write-off is invalid.

This document is heavily used by anti-Mormons.

So what? So is the D&C.

The teachings within this document are either poorly interpreted by the scribe or poorly interpreted by church members.

Part of it, yes. Parts of it, no.

As there are no clear corresponding doctrinal teaching of the nuggets of wisdom therein,

That just isn't true.

it remains a document that is good to read but not used to teach out of.

Parts of the discourse have been quoted and used in numerous manuals and talks. It is fine to teach from it within this scope. (Note, I see you sort of say the same when you add "There are nuggets in that document that is mirrored in doctrine - and those we teach.")

A Baptist, a Catholic, and an LDS can read the exact same verse from the exact same KJV translation of the exact same Bible... all three of them can walk away with three completely different interpretations of the verse. And that's why they all claim to be Christians and yet we all follow different doctrine. Without a clear doctrinal teaching under proper authority of God's Church, it is easy to stray into error.

As I pointed out to Funky, we don't interpret scriptures. Apostles and Prophets do. In this case, Joseph Smith - a prophet - interpreted the scriptures for us. Who am I to reinterpret it on my own? As far as I know, no other prophet or apostle has ever refuted Joseph Smith's interpretation.

My only stake in this thread is jinc's Catholic background, which, when applied to LDS life, can carry a certain baggage because there are stuff that we learned as Catholics that carry over to LDS and then there are those that we have to be very careful about. And this couplet is one of those that is very tricky because half of it completely aligns with Catholic while the other half is completely against Catholic if we consider God the Grandfather as doctrinal.

I do see your point here. My contention is that it is more harmful to be mealy mouthed and apologetic in this particular case than it is to be clear and straightforward. "This isn't doctrine so you can believe whatever you want" is not appropriate. "This is what Joseph Smith taught us on the matter" is appropriate. The baggage carried over by previous beliefs is always an issue, but it doesn't justify lack of clarity and honesty on any given subject, specifically when directly asked about it. If an investigator doesn't ask, sure, you don't teach them about plural marriage in the early church. If they DO ask, you answer honestly. "Yes." And then you carefully explain why and how.

But for a Catholic convert - this doesn't have to be a mind-bend because it is not necessary for us to believe in a God the Grandfather.

That is also an interpretation and isn't justifiable. You're assuming it is not necessary. Based on what? I contend we let Joseph Smith speak for himself. Moreover, that's not what it's really about. When asked a direct question we need to speak the truth.

Because I know that last comment will lead back to Pres. Hinkley, let me address that again. His comments were reported by the press. The church and Pres. Hinkley have specifically told us not to rely on the press's report. To assume he changed the church's stance or lied is unfair and invalid.

Okay, okay.... I've put my thoughts down fairly fully. And I accept your rights to view it differently. And I agree that we should be careful about what we say to investigators and new members. But I believe that we cannot make a blanket rule on that. Each situation and individual is different. Do we prepare a lesson for Gospel Principles about God the Grandfather? Of course not. And if the question is directly asked in church, sure...we can be careful about specifying that we don't know much about it. Frankly, I'd be more careful about speaking of it in church because of responses like this thread than I would be in fear of offending a new member. Arguments in church are never a good idea. :)

But in a public forum on the internet, I think it's important to answer a direct question honestly and clearly. It's not like the enquiry can't be Googled a half-second later to verify the claim. It's not like there isn't another thread right next door arguing the same point in all it's gory detail. And if we're going to play something down that was taught by the prophet Joseph Smith as "we don't necessarily believe that", we better have a good source as to why. It is significantly less potentially harmful to explain the reality of what we actually do believe - even if it's quote-unquote pseudo-doctrine - and then explain the principle behind it. And if we don't believe something, for whatever reason, it's best to leave it to the prophet. "Here's what Joseph Smith said." Me, as a faithful LDS member, not believing something Joseph Smith said does not give me the right to claim it false.

(Alternatively, as I've pointed out, I do NOT think it valid to use "Here's what President Hinkley said in a press interview," unless we clearly point out, as well, that he also told us not to rely on press interviews for church doctrine.)

Note: Joseph Smith's teaching on the Father having a father is not from the King Follet discourse.

[Blackmarch]

Blackmarch - "Either way God hasn't felt it important enough for us to know with surety."

Since when is prophets teaching it to us considered not "with surety"?

I wasn't saying anything about prophets.

Prophets share revelations they are given to share. Outside of those revelations they have to piece things together and walk in faith as much as any other man.

Closest thing we have in scriptuires that may throw light on the subject is Christ saying he does what he saw his father do. second best statement we have is the King Follet sermon.

[The Folk Prophet]

I wasn't saying anything about prophets.

Prophets share revelations they are given to share. Outside of those revelations they have to piece things together and walk in faith as much as any other man.

Closest thing we have in scriptuires that may throw light on the subject is Christ saying he does what he saw his father do. second best statement we have is the King Follet sermon.

You're saying that the Lord hasn't let us know with surety. But He has. You want to minimize the King Follet discourse. The church does not. The parts of this discourse that speak to God once being a man (the question at issue here) are oft quoted by the church.

Moreover, your implication that the King Follet discourse and the scriptures saying Christ does what He saw the father do are the ONLY two sources of this doctrine is false. You are disregarding many other prophet and apostle statements supporting the idea. This concept was clearly taught by Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McKonkie, etc. You make it out as if these teaching don't exist, as if the only statement ever made on the matter was the King Follet discourse. That is simply not true.

The latest church essay on this subject makes the it clear.

Yes, it can be argued that not all Mormons believe this. But what Mormon's believe does not define doctrine. Doctrine is defined by the prophets and apostles, as clarified here.

Obviously many details concerning the matter have not been revealed. There are statements that have been made that we can argue back and forth as to whether they constitute "doctrine" or not. But the prime question here as to God once being a man...this is doctrine.

[Finrock]

As I was thinking about this post again and there was something else that I wanted to point out.

The OP asks the question: Do Mormons believe God was once a man?

Here is the truth. God is a Man. Our heavenly parents are what man truly is. Until we are like God, we are not fully man.

Many times the world portrays a man as someone who is muscular, tough, rough, and mean. Or a man might be shown as being someone who can drink alcoholic beverages in large quantities without any problems. My point is that the world has all of these different perspectives as to what a real man or a real woman ought to be like. But, we as Latter-day Saints know that a true man or woman is one who is like God the Father or Heavenly Mother, respectively.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

God the Father has identified Himself to us as Man of Holiness; it is one of His names, His titles. That says something about what a man really is. Real manhood and womanhood is godhood. We should be men and women of holiness, just as the Father and Mother are.

-Finrock

[Blackmarch]

You're saying that the Lord hasn't let us know with surety. But He has. You want to minimize the King Follet discourse. The church does not. The parts of this discourse that speak to God once being a man (the question at issue here) are oft quoted by the church.

Moreover, your implication that the King Follet discourse and the scriptures saying Christ does what He saw the father do are the ONLY two sources of this doctrine is false. You are disregarding many other prophet and apostle statements supporting the idea. This concept was clearly taught by Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McKonkie, etc. You make it out as if these teaching don't exist, as if the only statement ever made on the matter was the King Follet discourse. That is simply not true.

The latest church essay on this subject makes the it clear.

Yes, it can be argued that not all Mormons believe this. But what Mormon's believe does not define doctrine. Doctrine is defined by the prophets and apostles, as clarified here.

Obviously many details concerning the matter have not been revealed. There are statements that have been made that we can argue back and forth as to whether they constitute "doctrine" or not. But the prime question here as to God once being a man...this is doctrine.

suit yourself. Edited March 4, 2014 by Blackmarch

[SpiritDragon]

It was very interesting yes!

However, I still don't quite understand the position. On the one hand, it sounds like Mormons definitively state God is the sole creator of the universe, but on the other hand, it seems Mormons think God was also once a man? I can't understand the position. Why do Mormons believe it?

The way my mortal mind wraps around this is found in the intercessory prayer (john 17). Perhaps it is not obvious, and I may be incorrect in my understanding... but I don't think I am.

The idea that God being a man once negates God creating the universe seems to miss out on an important aspect about the nature of God.

In the intercessory prayer Jesus prays that His followers can be one with He and His Father. As opposed to being a hall of multiple Gods, we will become one with God if we are blessed with exaltation. While it is not explicitly stated, it is certainly implied, that God the Father himself has become one with God. In this way His being a man doesn't prevent the unified Gods (God) that was, is, and always will be from creating the universe.

As for the other questions this brings up... I don't know the answers, nor is much known about the parents of God beyond the fact they do exist.