Do you think that God once was a man?

[Shell72]

In the Book of Moses, correction to Genesis, it was Lucifer who try to claim that position.

The book of Moses is not in the Bible and comes from Joseph Smith.

[Hemidakota]

Yes...but the Lucifer will appear to those who are of the Church of the First Born [me talking here and not the church], then will try to claim himself as the Christ.

Shell, what do you think happen to Moses on the mount for those forty days? Are you even curious to know?

Though, I will tell and be blunt, I do know the Godhood. I do know the character of GOD. I do know the Savior; my hero, my friend, and elder brother whom I do look up to. I do know the Holy Spirit, which is my friend and companion in this probation has helped many times with various confirmations of truths received. As I do know personally, the prophet Joseph Smith.

Yes! We do fall short of grasping many truths based on own personal bias views, culture upbringing, worldly influences, and at times, plain arrogance. In falling short of those precious truths, mainly due to our spiritual immaturity when the Savior calls forth His own.

I do pray, coming from my former Catholic days, never deny something thinking you know more or hope to know more than another. But, go and ponder on what was said, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you in the right direction and at the same time, confirm what was said.

Now, I am here for a purpose and only for a short time. Making my rounds for those CFB individual.

God bless you in your search for truth. I pray it will come quickly.

Your friend.

[Vanhin]

Vanhin:

You're entitled to your viewpoint, as am I. I don't see much point in discussing this further. You've made it clear you are not open to seeing God as a Being who progressed to where He is now. He materialized magically as this all-knowing, omnipotent Being with no past status as something else.

That does not make sense to me.

Your understanding of what I am saying is a little incorrect. Let me explain it, and then you and I can be done with this conversation if you wish it.

I am saying that God has always been God, not because it is my viewpoint, but because the scriptures teach it. And I am also saying that the scriptures do not teach that Heavenly Father has a father. Therefore, we shouldn't teach it either.

Unlike JohnBirchSociety, I do not think that God entering mortality makes him less than God. The scriptures confirm that God did indeed descend from his throne divine, to teach us the way, to atone for the sins of mankind, and to bring about the resurrection. I love the words of Abinadi:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. (Mosiah 15:1-4)

Jesus Christ was God before he was born into mortality. This proves that God has been as we are now. And he did it, that we may become as He is (John 17:11-26). IT IS correct, and backed by scriptures, to say "As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.”, at least in this sense.

Of course He was not an ordinary man, he was God, even during his mortal ministry.

At the end of the day, I suppose it matters very little to what is needed for salvation. I think given the conditions of this world we live in, God is probably more interested in our believing in Him AT ALL vs whether or not He has a Father or GrandFather. :)

I wish you well.

Tom

Though I appreciate the gesture, I have to say that it matters very much. To know Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, is what this is all about. If you don't believe me, ask the Savior himself:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Vanhin:

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

And you're right -- it is important to know God's true nature.

The Church is and always will be oriented toward the new convert. That is why you hear what you hear from the pulpit in General Conference and in Sunday School and Priesthood. They are catering to the new convert's level of understanding.

But not everyone is a new convert. Some of us are ready for meat. I am not going to "give-in" to your viewpoint, no matter how much scripture you quote me. And no, I don't agree with you that this is what the scriptures teach; that God did not progress into His current status. I say that they teach He did progress. I know it because I know I walk the same path He did. Otherwise, how would He know how to guide me?

I'm not here to contend. And I am not preaching this or insisting that anyone must believe it. I walk according to the light and truth God has given me.

God bless,

Tom

[Vanhin]

Vanhin:

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

And you're right -- it is important to know God's true nature.

The Church is and always will be oriented toward the new convert. That is why you hear what you hear from the pulpit in General Conference and in Sunday School and Priesthood. They are catering to the new convert's level of understanding.

But not everyone is a new convert. Some of us are ready for meat. I am not going to "give-in" to your viewpoint, no matter how much scripture you quote me. And no, I don't agree with you that this is what the scriptures teach; that God did not progress into His current status. I say that they teach He did progress. I know it because I know I walk the same path He did. Otherwise, how would He know how to guide me?

I'm not here to contend. And I am not preaching this or insisting that anyone must believe it. I walk according to the light and truth God has given me.

God bless,

Tom

Ok, sounds good. I'm not sure you are reading my posts. These are my points.

1) God has always been God according to the scriptures.

2) The scriptures do not confirm that Heavenly Father has a father.

So, you disagree with the above points? Which means:

1) You actually think that God was at one point not God

2) The scriptures confirm that Heavenly Father has a father

Correct?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Traveler]

Ok, sounds good. I'm not sure you are reading my posts. These are my points.

1) God has always been God according to the scriptures.

2) The scriptures do not confirm that Heavenly Father has a father.

So, you disagree with the above points? Which means:

1) You actually think that God was at one point not God

2) The scriptures confirm that Heavenly Father has a father

Correct?

Regards,

Vanhin

Just a few ideas. The scriptures are not 100% clear that G-d the Father has always been G-d the Father (what ever that may mean). The scriptures start at what was called the beginning which if I understand my Hebrew experts correctly, the “Beginning” could also be understood as “when G-d first covenanted with man”, which would imply that man in some form was coincident at that point in scripture that is referred to in the English version as the Beginning.

In general there is very little known in scripture of G-d the Father – in fact all we know of the Father - comes according to covenant through the mediator Jesus Christ. This is a most important understanding of Christian theology.

The questions you ask are impossible to answer because there is nothing known prior to what is called the “Beginning”. Speculation for any reason is a road to heresy. I suggest that we stay within what G-d had revealed.

The Traveler

[Vanhin]

Just a few ideas. The scriptures are not 100% clear that G-d the Father has always been G-d the Father (what ever that may mean). The scriptures start at what was called the beginning which if I understand my Hebrew experts correctly, the “Beginning” could also be understood as “when G-d first covenanted with man”, which would imply that man in some form was coincident at that point in scripture that is referred to in the English version as the Beginning.

In general there is very little known in scripture of G-d the Father – in fact all we know of the Father - comes according to covenant through the mediator Jesus Christ. This is a most important understanding of Christian theology.

The questions you ask are impossible to answer because there is nothing known prior to what is called the “Beginning”. Speculation for any reason is a road to heresy. I suggest that we stay within what G-d had revealed.

The Traveler

I'm with you brother, and I appreciate your ideas. :) I'm all about staying within what God has revealed.

However, the scriptures are 100% clear that God has been God forever. I'm not sure I follow you there.

The term "beginning" is for our benefit while in mortality. It's difficult for us to grasp the eternities in our mortal and finite state. Of course there is no beginning, nor will there ever be an end to God nor to his works.

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. (Moses 1:3-4)

And later in the same chapter:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Ok, sounds good. I'm not sure you are reading my posts. These are my points.

1) God has always been God according to the scriptures.

2) The scriptures do not confirm that Heavenly Father has a father.

So, you disagree with the above points? Which means:

1) You actually think that God was at one point not God

2) The scriptures confirm that Heavenly Father has a father

Correct?

Regards,

Vanhin

I am familiar with the point of view you are presenting, yes.

I am just saying that, I, personally, do not agree with it.

1) You actually think that God was at one point not God - CORRECT, THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE.

2) The scriptures confirm that Heavenly Father has a father. - CORRECT, BUT I NEED TO QUALIFY THAT ANSWER.

Not all knowledge to be had is to be had from taking the scriptures LITERALLY.

Some knowledge about God comes from what the scriptures DON'T SAY as much as what they DO SAY.

Some knowledge about God comes from lots of different places in scripture that you have to piece together like a puzzle.

Some knowledge about God comes from plain common sense and logic which the Spirit confirms as true.

Everything I feel and believe -- the reasons for it -- not all of it is utterable or shareable.

I don't go around preaching it to people.

If somebody raises the topic, as was done in this thread, then I will give my opinion on the matter.

I say the evidence IS to be found in scripture.

I say that some of the early Brethren made statements that indicate we do, in fact, have Heavenly Parents as well as Heavenly Grandparents -- going back ad infinitum.

You are not required to agree with me.

I think it is rather obvious that you don't. :)

Let me take a minute and see if I can find scripture that makes my case. I haven't really taken the time to do this, since my belief is quite personal to me and not necessarily proveable **JUST** using the scriptures alone. Keep in mind that God never has stated that the Truths He has to give us reside ONLY in the scriptures, or even ONLY inside the confines or Mormonism alone.

Here goes:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation

also:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon

From that talk:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

Notice I got this off of LDS.org.

President Boyd K. Packer gave a talk in which he included the following:

You Can Do the Lord’s Work

...

...

Years ago a friend told this experience. He was 17 years old and with his companion stopped at a cottage in the southern states. It was his first day in the mission field and was his first door. A gray-haired woman stood inside the screen and asked what they wanted. His companion nudged him to proceed. Frightened and somewhat tongue-tied, he finally blurted out, “As man is God once was, and as God is man may become.”

Here is a link to that talk:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part of the poem reads:

The boy, like to his father grown,

Has but attained unto his own;

To grow to sire from state of son,

Is not ’gainst Nature’s course to run.

A son of God, like God to be,

Would not be robbing Deity.

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

Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

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

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

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

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

Here is a link to that talk:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question

The words of living oracles are "scripture."

[Vanhin]

Tomk,

Thank you for taking the time to research and post all of that.

Like I said in the other post, I believe that the couplet "As man is God once was, and as God is man may become", is true, and I even provided evidence from scripture to support it. (which is one othe reasons I'm not sure you are reading my posts fully, or understanding them.)

But none of what you posted from lds.org claims that God was at one point not God, nor does it teach that Heavenly Father had a father. We simply do not know the answer to the last one.

We do know that God has always been God. The scriptures prove it and the prophets have taught it from Adam to Thomas S. Monson. We do not know about the Father's mortal experience, except that it was like the Son's. This in no way means that He was not God during that time, nor before. From one of your links Joseph Smith taught:

“...he [Heavenly Father] was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”

Here is what I take issue with. The suggestion that the process by which God gained a body somehow made him not God. It does not. He is God and always has been. Just like Jesus Christ was God before, during, and after his earthly ministry.

Joseph Smith taught the following:

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.”8

It's fine if we disagree, but the evidence you have put forth does not show that God was at one point not God.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Vanhin:

It's okay to disagree. :)

I am not threatened by the idea that God was, once upon a time, not a God. To me, it makes Him more relatable...more "human"....more approachable. It makes Him more like a "Father" to me, rather than feeling like He's never gone through what I'm going through, never looked to heaven and wondered what it would be like to be a God one day. That is my God.

God having once been a man, in my view, does not make Him "less of a God."

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you in light of what I believe and in light of what I took the time to post. And it is you who is not taking the time to read my posts, based upon your reply just now.

[Guest tomk]

Tell me, how do you explain President Snow's statement?

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”

Clearly this is not a reference to Christ, but to Elohim.

[Vanhin]

Vanhin:

It's okay to disagree. :)

I am not threatened by the idea that God was, once upon a time, not a God. To me, it makes Him more relatable...more "human"....more approachable. It makes Him more like a "Father" to me, rather than feeling like He's never gone through what I'm going through, never looked to heaven and wondered what it would be like to be a God one day. That is my God.

God having once been a man, in my view, does not make Him "less of a God."

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you in light of what I believe and in light of what I took the time to post. And it is you who is not taking the time to read my posts, based upon your reply just now.

Thanks. Don't take my quick reply as a indicator that I did not read your posts. I have read the articles you posted many times, and am quite familiar with them. That's why I am confident in saying that they do not teach about Heavenly Father's father, or that God was once not God. :)

I agree that God having been Man does not make him less of a God. That's what I've been trying to say! Jesus Christ was not less of a God when he was on earth either.

God the Father is a Man, not was. He is the Man of Holiness, and Jesus is the Son of Man. They do understand our situation, especially the Son, who took upon Him our pains and our sins, whose will was swallowed up in the will of the Father's.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Okay. :)

Well, I can't explain it any better than I already have. If you don't see it, you don't see it. There's not much I can do.

Take care,

Tom

[Vanhin]

Tell me, how do you explain President Snow's statement?

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”

Clearly this is not a reference to Christ, but to Elohim.

Thanks for asking. Here's what I think.

It is a reference to Elohim and to Christ. They are both God, and have both gained immortal bodies, and we too may become like them. This statement indicates that mankind is the offspring of God, and that God also gained a body, by entering mortality. The details of which, concerning the Father, we do not know.

But we do know, that there is only one way, and that is through the Only Begotten Son, and His infinite and eternal sacrifice; which sacrifice overcame the effects of sin and death. So, if Father gained a body, it is throught the power of the resurrection brought to pass by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

9 O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world. (Hel. 5:9)

I think the problem is that people want to try to fit all of this in a nice linear package, like our mortal lives are. That's not how it is. It makes one eternal round. One day we will fully understand it. I love the Book of Moses:

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. (Moses 1:5-6)

I see you have had enough of this back and forth. I understand. Thanks for the conversation.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest tomk]

Thanks for asking. Here's what I think.

It is a reference to Elohim and to Christ. They are both God, and have both gained immortal bodies, and we too may become like them. This statement indicates that mankind is the offspring of God, and that God also gained a body, by entering mortality. The details of which, concerning the Father, we do not know.

But we do know, that there is only one way, and that is through the Only Begotten Son, and His infinite and eternal sacrifice; which sacrifice overcame the effects of sin and death. So, if Father gained a body, it is throught the power of the resurrection brought to pass by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

9 O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world. (Hel. 5:9)

I think the problem is that people want to try to fit all of this in a nice linear package, like our mortal lives are. That's not how it is. It makes one eternal round. One day we will fully understand it. I love the Book of Moses:

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. (Moses 1:5-6)

I see you have had enough of this back and forth. I understand. Thanks for the conversation.

Regards,

Vanhin

Thank you.

Tom

[Shell72]

Tell me, how do you explain President Snow's statement?

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”

Clearly this is not a reference to Christ, but to Elohim.

This is what frightens me... When someone deemed a prophet or leader within the Church ( President Snow for instance) makes a comment it is taken as solid and truth. When God makes a statement " I am not man!" the value of a Prophets word is put higher than His, and reasons for the "miswording" of the Bible are given.. ( writing style etc).

Am I alone in this feeling?

[Guest tomk]

This is what frightens me... When someone deemed a prophet or leader within the Church ( President Snow for instance) makes a comment it is taken as solid and truth. When God makes a statement " I am not man!" the value of a Prophets word is put higher than His, and reasons for the "miswording" of the Bible are given.. ( writing style etc).

Am I alone in this feeling?

No, you're not "alone" in your feelings. I am sure a lot of people agree with you.

There are also a lot of people, I'm sure, who believe in this statement.

And it wasn't just President Snow. This was also taught by Joseph Smith.

[Shell72]

No, you're not "alone" in your feelings. I am sure a lot of people agree with you.

There are also a lot of people, I'm sure, who believe in this statement.

And it wasn't just President Snow. This was also taught by Joseph Smith.

And we can all agree that God's word would supercede that of Joseph Smith and President Snow?

This is honestly what makes me question some of the LDS teachings. I feel like they are in direct contradiciton with what the Bible tells us, and when questioning this it is always met with "Well the Bible actually meant such and such" or the like. Basically saying the Bible is wrong, or misunderstood, and that the words of Man are right. That someone 3000 years later can better explain to us what was happening, than the men in the Bibles first hand accounts of it. Some things in the Bible are blatantly clear - and changing something as simple as "I am not Man" to fit man's ideas just does not seem right.

Just my take on things..

[ruthiechan]

I must ask, why is every member of the Church of Jesus Christ ignoring Skippy's post?

We have church manuals that have the Teachings of Modern Day Prophets. Below is one from Brigham Young, and it has been put forth again in our time to be taught in Priesthood and Relief Society. Therefore what is below IS official doctrine.

Here's something from the Teachings of Brigham Young manual:

LDS.org - Relief Society Chapter Detail - Knowing and Honoring the Godhead

God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22).

Some believe or conceive the idea that to know God would lessen him in our estimation; but I can say that for me to understand any principle or being, on earth or in heaven, it does not lessen its true value to me, but on the contrary, it increases it; and the more I can know of God, the dearer and more precious he is to me, and the more exalted are my feelings towards him (DBY, 18).

The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; he sways his scepter, and does his will among the children of men, among Saints and among sinners, and brings forth results to suit his purpose among kingdoms and nations and empires, that all may redound to his glory and to the perfection of his work (DBY, 22).

This does not say however, that God the Father was not God at the time he was mortal. Jesus Christ was a God before He came to Earth and received a body. He was also a God during his mortal life and after. And thus it is with God the Father.

Was God the Father crucified? I do not know. My father believes that is not the case. He believes that Jesus Christ is the only Savior to ever exist because the scriptures say that His atonement is infinite. And thusly He atoned for every person to ever exist on every single world that has existed and will exist.

My father also believes that God the Father is the first of us to gain active sentience; to actually DO something with His intellect and thus He started the whole cycle and that we are not the first world He created. . . Therefore that is why God the Father is the Greatest of All.

I do not know if my father's speculation is correct or not. But I do know that the above quoted material is correct. All of the church manuals for Relief Society and Priesthood are official doctrine. So are all the General Conferences.

[Vanhin]

I must ask, why is every member of the Church of Jesus Christ ignoring Skippy's post?

We have church manuals that have the Teachings of Modern Day Prophets. Below is one from Brigham Young, and it has been put forth again in our time to be taught in Priesthood and Relief Society. Therefore what is below IS official doctrine.

This does not say however, that God the Father was not God at the time he was mortal. Jesus Christ was a God before He came to Earth and received a body. He was also a God during his mortal life and after. And thus it is with God the Father.

Was God the Father crucified? I do not know. My father believes that is not the case. He believes that Jesus Christ is the only Savior to ever exist because the scriptures say that His atonement is infinite. And thusly He atoned for every person to ever exist on every single world that has existed and will exist.

My father also believes that God the Father is the first of us to gain active sentience; to actually DO something with His intellect and thus He started the whole cycle and that we are not the first world He created. . . Therefore that is why God the Father is the Greatest of All.

I do not know if my father's speculation is correct or not. But I do know that the above quoted material is correct. All of the church manuals for Relief Society and Priesthood are official doctrine. So are all the General Conferences.

This is what I have been trying to say. Thanks.

Big Edit: However, I must point out that what constitutes official doctrine of the Church does not necessarily include what is in the manuals. Here is the Church's clarification on what is doctrine:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith." (LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine)

The manuals, lessons, talks, and so fort do not necessarily represent official doctrine, and may contain errors in them. However, they do, in my opinion, represent the Church's current interpretation on the various topics, and are more than mere speculation. We should definetly pay heed to them, just like the counsel of the prophets and apostles during conference. There is a specific process that doctrine has to go through before it is "official", however. When that happens it ends up in one of the sources mentioned above.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

ruthiechan,

One more thing. The way your father feels about these things, is exactly the way I do as well. Not that that should mean anything to anyone at this juncture. Just let him know he's not the only one.

One day we will know all about these things...

Regards,

Vanhin

[Dale]

This is what frightens me... When someone deemed a prophet or leader within the Church ( President Snow for instance) makes a comment it is taken as solid and truth. When God makes a statement " I am not man!" the value of a Prophets word is put higher than His, and reasons for the "miswording" of the Bible are given.. ( writing style etc).

Am I alone in this feeling?

My Community of Christ/RLDS feels the Father is not an exalted man. But we do feel god the Son was that God and is a resurrected man. Hosea 11:9 which i think you are referring to has been used to say Jesus can't be God. To me all it says is he denied being a mortal man. He wasn't saying he could not become a man as that would conflict with Matthew 1:23. Jesus is God with us.

Can Jesus as God still claim as God claim as much as he did back then he was not man? He denies being man he doesn't say he can't be a man. Or did when he took upon his body giving up his status of being a spirit without a body lose his right to say that?(Luke 24:39) If he can still say that then i reasoned God the Father could be an exalted man and claim the same thing.

[ruthiechan]

ruthiechan,

One more thing. The way your father feels about these things, is exactly the way I do as well. Not that that should mean anything to anyone at this juncture. Just let him know he's not the only one.

One day we will know all about these things...

Regards,

Vanhin

Yeah? Interesting, maybe he's not a crazy old geezer!

I'll let him know next I see him.

[Vanhin]

Yeah? Interesting, maybe he's not a crazy old geezer!

I'll let him know next I see him.

Well hold on now! It may actually confirm that he's crazy.

Vanhin

[Dale]

I don't think God was once a man. If he was and i found that out i would be very surprised. While Reorganized Latter Day Saints accept the First Vision we don't interpret it as saying Joseph Smith saw the Father with a body. I figure God the Father either assumed form for the occasion, or was a personage of spirit.