Page 1 of 5

I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:46 pm
by _Rollo Tomasi
You may recall the interview GBH gave to the San Francisco Chronicle in 1997 that had this interesting exchange (bold mine for emphasis):

Q: My understanding of the Mormon Church is that you see your church as a restoration of the original church.

A: Right. Not a reformist church but a restored church.

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: 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.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can


Apparently, the confusion has been resolved, because in the new Relief Society/Melchizedek manual for 2008 and 2006, entitled The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it states in the 2nd lesson (quoting the King Follett Discourse) (bold mine):

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 ....

Re: I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:55 pm
by _The Nehor
Rollo Tomasi wrote:You may recall the interview GBH gave to the San Francisco Chronicle in 1997 that had this interesting exchange (bold mine for emphasis):

Q: My understanding of the Mormon Church is that you see your church as a restoration of the original church.

A: Right. Not a reformist church but a restored church.

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: 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.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can


Apparently, the confusion has been resolved, because in the new Relief Society/Melchizedek manual for 2008 and 2006, entitled The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it states in the 2nd lesson (quoting the King Follett Discourse) (bold mine):

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 ....


There was confusion?

Re: I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:57 pm
by _Mercury
The Nehor wrote:There was confusion?


At the least your prophet was confused. Judging by the look on his face during the interview he looked pretty disoriented.

Re: I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:59 pm
by _The Nehor
Mercury wrote:
The Nehor wrote:There was confusion?


At the least your prophet was confused. Judging by the look on his face during the interview he looked pretty disoriented.


No, I think he was carefully choosing his words. He knew the interview was going to be a soundbyte thing. Explaining the LDS understanding of human destiny takes at least a half hour in my experience. He knew he wasn't going to get it and he knew that. So he deflected the question by saying we don't know much about it (which is true, we know that it happens and that is about it).

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:01 pm
by _LifeOnaPlate
Even as it stands in the manual we don't know much about it.

Re: I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:10 pm
by _Mercury
The Nehor wrote:
Mercury wrote:
The Nehor wrote:There was confusion?


At the least your prophet was confused. Judging by the look on his face during the interview he looked pretty disoriented.


No, I think he was carefully choosing his words. He knew the interview was going to be a soundbyte thing. Explaining the LDS understanding of human destiny takes at least a half hour in my experience. He knew he wasn't going to get it and he knew that. So he deflected the question by saying we don't know much about it (which is true, we know that it happens and that is about it).


It was a simple yes or no question, something along the lines of "do you teach that god used to be mortal?"

The clear answer was, is and for the time being will be that LDS teach that God was once a man. Any mirror moving, smoke pot lighting and other obfuscations detract from one of the core principals of "eternal progression".

Why is it that Mormons debating exmormons forget that we exmormons can't be given the jedi handwave to forget what we know to be true about Mormonism?

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:11 pm
by _Mercury
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Even as it stands in the manual we don't know much about it.


What is there to "know" other than god was once a man and that Hinckley clearly LIED?

that's what this issue comes down to - Hinckley lied and Mormons dance around as if it happened in some alternate universe.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:12 pm
by _The Nehor
Mercury wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Even as it stands in the manual we don't know much about it.


What is there to "know" other than god was once a man and that Hinckley clearly LIED?

that's what this issue comes down to - Hinckley lied and Mormons dance around as if it happened in some alternate universe.


It might have.

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:15 pm
by _Mercury
The Nehor wrote:
Mercury wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Even as it stands in the manual we don't know much about it.


What is there to "know" other than god was once a man and that Hinckley clearly LIED?

that's what this issue comes down to - Hinckley lied and Mormons dance around as if it happened in some alternate universe.


It might have.


Whats funny/sad about your response is that I have to assume you seriously believe this.

Re: I guess the Church teaches the couplet again ....

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:18 pm
by _Rollo Tomasi
The Nehor wrote:So he deflected the question by saying we don't know much about it (which is true, we know that it happens and that is about it).

The actual question was whether LDS believe that God was once a man, and GBH responded (italics mine), "I wouldn't say that." But the manual clearly says that.