DiscussMormonism.com

Runtu wrote:

charity wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:

charity wrote:Ask and you can get a straightforward answer on any question you have.

Was God once a man?

Yes. But while we accept that, we don't teach about His mortal existence because we don't know anything about it.

You do realize that you just contradicted the prophet, don't you? :) He said he didn't know that we teach it.

Runtu is right. President Hinckley has set the proper way for the Church to rid itself of much esoteric speculation that may impede its mission. Just like abandoning such wacky speculations as Adam-God, blood atonement, polygamy and the racial purity test for the Priesthood. The Church still has so much potential for good, that there really is no need for such past speculations to be an albatross weighing the Church down in achieving its potential.

The King Follet discourse is taught in the second lesson in the brand new Joseph Smith manual.

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. …

LINK

Gazelam wrote:The King Follet discourse is taught in the second lesson in the brand new Joseph Smith manual.

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. …

Someone better tell Pres Hinckley. He still thinks we don't teach that.

moksha wrote:

Runtu wrote:

charity wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:

charity wrote:Ask and you can get a straightforward answer on any question you have.

Was God once a man?

Yes. But while we accept that, we don't teach about His mortal existence because we don't know anything about it.

You do realize that you just contradicted the prophet, don't you? :) He said he didn't know that we teach it.

Runtu is right. President Hinckley has set the proper way for the Church to rid itself of much esoteric speculation that may impede its mission. Just like abandoning such wacky speculations as Adam-God, blood atonement, polygamy and the racial purity test for the Priesthood. The Church still has so much potential for good, that there really is no need for such past speculations to be an albatross weighing the Church down in achieving its potential.

I was thinking this exactly when I read Charity's comments above on the other thread.

Question: "Was God once a man?

Answer from Charity: "Yes. But while we accept that, we don't teach about His mortal existence because we don't know anything about it."

What are people like Charity going to do when the church abandons its previous belief (implied or stated) that what that means is that God the Father was once a man, and instead goes with the more mainstream white bread Christian belief of Jesus Christ having been a God who was a man? That's classic abandonment. I wouldn't have predicted it twenty years ago, but with the other examples of recent years, including backing off of hemispheric models for the Book of Mormon or Lamanites being principal ancestors of the American Indians, added to a lot of the backtracking being done during the Romney campaign, nothing would now surprise me less.

So, it wouldn't be accurate for that generation of Mormon to say "we don't know anything about it." The future correct answer will be, when asked if God was once a man, "Yes. His name was Jesus and we read accounts of his mortal life in scripture."

All these little oddities will be eventually jettisoned in favor of appearing more palatable to the general public.

"Baptisms for the dead?" We did that once, but we don't practice it anymore.

the road to hana wrote:
All these little oddities will be eventually jettisoned in favor of appearing more palatable to the general public.

"Baptisms for the dead?" We did that once, but we don't practice it anymore.

Personally, I would like to think that is emanates from ongoing revelation which provides a better understanding of the will of God. As to the Baptisms for the Dead, they seem to be integrally woven into the mission of the Church.

So tell me, from the King Follett sermon what do we know about God's mortal existence? When Joseph Smith saw Him in the grove we knew He had the form and appearance of a man. So what do we know more than that?

charity wrote:So tell me, from the King Follett sermon what do we know about God's mortal existence?

"God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did;"

charity wrote:When Joseph Smith saw Him in the grove we knew He had the form and appearance of a man. So what do we know more than that?

That which is contained in the first four books of the New Testament.

Charity, it's apparently not clear to you that what I'm suggesting is that the LDS Church will eventually back away from strong claims that it is God the Father who was once a man, and point instead to Jesus Christ having been both God and man. They'll be able to point to church doctrine claiming that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel, and Joseph Smith's own words in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God."

You might not think that will happen. But I'd be willing to put good money on it, just based on how, as noted in the OP on this thread, abandonment of previously held beliefs is a reality. Or perhaps it is not that the beliefs are abandoned, just reevaluated.

Gazelam, I wonder if you could edit your link. It widens the page, thereby requiring that, in order to read the thoughts of other posters, one must engage in horizontal scrolling.

the road to hana wrote:
Charity, it's apparently not clear to you that what I'm suggesting is that the LDS Church will eventually back away from strong claims that it is God the Father who was once a man, and point instead to Jesus Christ having been both God and man. They'll be able to point to church doctrine claiming that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, the God of Israel, and Joseph Smith's own words in the Doctrine and Covenants that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God."

You might not think that will happen. But I'd be willing to put good money on it, just based on how, as noted in the OP on this thread, abandonment of previously held beliefs is a reality. Or perhaps it is not that the beliefs are abandoned, just reevaluated.

Change is inevitable simply because God has built that into the nature of the Universe. The LDS Church may be slow to keep pace with social changes, but that does not mean it is unchanging. It changes like every thing else, and and I believe that is as God intended (maybe not so slowly though).