From the Archives: Scott Cho and "Loopholes"

[_Scottcho]

Ya, I'd have to agree about the role of Satan in pre existence. I mean, his plan would've had everyone going to celestial kingdom. that sounds like a pretty good plan to me and apparently it also sounded good to 1/3 of the spirits... I'd have to say, if I did really side with god against satan in that war, it's more likely that I was afraid of God's wrath than actually disagreeing with Satan.

[_beastie]

Scottie,

I'm not exactly sure which part of my statement you wanted referenced, but I'll assume it's the part about the plan of salvation not being new, and that everyone in the pre-existence understood the plan and the parts that had to be played. There are some believers on the internet who insist that it's not "doctrine" that God was a man who, like we're supposed to, evolved to become a god, but that's what I was taught. I was taught that "as man is, God once was", and taught that this meant Heavenly Father worked out his OWN salvation prior to becoming God (and may have been a savior on his own world.)

Here's a link to a site that already compiled some citations that reveal this teaching:

http://i4m.com/think/leaders/god_was_man.htm

[_beastie]

This is also helpful. From a 1982 Ensign:

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.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: “Being present at a ‘Blessing Meeting,’ in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.

“The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: ‘You will become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.’ ” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)

Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1–16.) According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …

“As man now is, God once was:”

“As God now is, man may be.”

“I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.” (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46–47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)

President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’ ” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he 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.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

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.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... CRD&locale
=0&sourceId=ec1faeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[_Abinadi's Fire]

When I first started to ask this about the baby killing and the guaranteed access to celestial kingdom, I was under the impression that one could rise up in the celestial kingdom even though one may start from the very bottom of its three tier system. Since then, I was kindly informed that that is not true. Apparently, one cannot move past through the three levels of celestial kingdom, ie if a baby is killed and sent to the lowest level of celestial kingdom, that baby cannot progress to the highest glory to attain divinity. Assuming that killed babies are sent to the lowest kingdom, I'm now not so certain if such an act of 'sacrifice' by the murderer is best for the child.

Creepy Book of Mormon reference:

3 Nephi 17:24 And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

[_Scottcho]

When I first started to ask this about the baby killing and the guaranteed access to celestial kingdom, I was under the impression that one could rise up in the celestial kingdom even though one may start from the very bottom of its three tier system. Since then, I was kindly informed that that is not true. Apparently, one cannot move past through the three levels of celestial kingdom, ie if a baby is killed and sent to the lowest level of celestial kingdom, that baby cannot progress to the highest glory to attain divinity. Assuming that killed babies are sent to the lowest kingdom, I'm now not so certain if such an act of 'sacrifice' by the murderer is best for the child.

Creepy Book of Mormon reference:

3 Nephi 17:24 And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

Hmm.. I'm not sure if that's the same thing as what I was wondering about though...

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Probably not, but I've always wondered about that verse.

[_cinepro]

As rhinomelon pointed out, I've raised this subject a few times in the past because I find it to be a very unexplored doctrine. Once you start thinking about it, the logical ramifications are fascinating!

First, we need to state the doctrine:

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/dc/137/10#10

This is from the Doctrine and Covenants, which means several things. It was dictated by Joseph Smith with no translation or transcription errors. Also, there were no limitations on space. There are revelations in the D&C which run on and on for pages and pages. If there needed to be any clarification or explanation added to this doctrine, The Lord could have easily and plainly included it. If we needed to hear about post-mortal choices or ordinances, there was plenty of space for it. But the doctrine is simply and clearly stated, in plain English. And because it appears in the canonized Standard Works, we must judge any teaching we hear from a Church member against it, and if they contradict it in any way, we must ignore their teaching as false doctrine.

It is also interesting as a doctrine because we can see the reflexive reaction many LDS have once this doctrine is taken beyond its initial "Oh isn't that nice" phase. Once we realize that someone could intentionally save children by having them die before they arrive at the years of accountability, we find a need to make up some reason why this isn't true. But all that extra stuff is just made up conjecture. Everything we need to know is right there in plain English.

So what does it mean? First off, it means that the vast majority of spirits in the CK are going to be these dead kids. Any way you do the math, infant mortality has been enormous in world history compared to the number of people who accept the gospel and endure to the end. And since our same spirits stay with us through eternity, I don't think the statistics are going to improve too much in the eternities. Locally speaking, we have about a 500:1 ratio on kids who die in our mission boundaries and converts who stay active for at least 5 years. Seeing as I live in a wealthy area with top quality health care and lots of missionaries, the ratio is probably far greater in other areas of the world. And it only gets greater as you go back in time. Anyone want to do the math on how many kids were killed by Noah's flood?

Now what do we do with the uncomfortable fact that each of us has the power to be a "Savior on Mount Zion" by killing a kid. Contrary to popular belief (and stated previously in this thread), God has not reserved the power to kill. Each of us has this power. Of course, no one in their right mind would harm a child. But not everyone is in their right mind. How is an LDS supposed to react to the story of Andrea Yates (the Texas mother who drowned her 5 kids?) Each child was under the "age of accountability" (8yrs), so according to the doctrine, they are all "saved in the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven". Is Andrea Yates a monster? A crazy person? Or a savior, who sacrificed her own eternal salvation so that 5 others may be saved? And if she was crazy, is it possible God could even forgive her and not hold her accountable? Regardless, wherever she ends up in the eternities, will she find happiness in ultimately knowing that she gave her kids an eternal gift? How would a story like this be told? We hear of people who give up their earthly lives so that others may live mortal lives. Is a person who gives up their eternal life so that others may live eternally more or less heroic?

[_Some Schmo]

You know, if it's such a sick thing to consider killing babies in the name of their salvation, why isn't it equally morbid to talk about Christ's suicide for the same reasons? I mean, he knew it was coming and he let it happen. I thought suicide was a one-way ticket to outer darkness.

Christ should have held in there when the going got tough... the demented maniac.

[_Blixa]

You know, if it's such a sick thing to consider killing babies in the name of their salvation, why isn't it equally morbid to talk about Christ's suicide for the same reasons? I mean, he knew it was coming and he let it happen. I thought suicide was a one-way ticket to outer darkness.

Christ should have held in there when the going got tough... the demented maniac.

Suicide-by-centurion, Schmo.

[_Scottcho]

Technically, the guard with the spear did not kill Jesus. He commanded his own spirit to God, so that would be a suicide.