What is this doctrine?

[_Fortigurn]

Thanks for the replies guys, and the welcome back. BC, your answer was particularly useful to my understanding. I'd be happy to receive replies from other LDS members.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Am I wrong, or didn't Gordon B. Hinckley pretty much claim that this was NOT doctrine, but was "more a couplet than anything else" in some TV interview?

[_bcspace]

BC, your answer was particularly useful to my understanding.

You're welcome. I have indeed seen some LDS apologists in the past say this was not doctrine unfortunately. I don't see them taking that stand anymore.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Am I wrong, or didn't Gordon B. Hinckley pretty much claim that this was NOT doctrine, but was "more a couplet than anything else" in some TV interview?

He did, and he said it's something that nobody really knows much about. I assume he meant HE didn't know much about it, because other prophets seemed to know quite a lot about it. Now that he's dead, it can become doctrine again.

[_bcspace]

He did, and he said it's something that nobody really knows much about. I assume he meant HE didn't know much about it, because other prophets seemed to know quite a lot about it.

He did not. He verablly stumbled on the way to saying we don't emphasize it.

Now that he's dead, it can become doctrine again.

The prophet alone cannot make or break doctrine unless it's relevation/inspiration he receives and presents it to the FP and Qo12. See my siggy. The first presidency and the Qo12 must all agree.

[_TrashcanMan79]

He did, and he said it's something that nobody really knows much about. I assume he meant HE didn't know much about it, because other prophets seemed to know quite a lot about it.

He did not. He verablly stumbled on the way to saying we don't emphasize it.

I found the GBH quote here:

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

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

Hinckley: 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?

Hinckley: 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. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

GBH said "I wouldn't say that" and "that's more a couplet than anything else" when asked if Mormons believe God was once a man. If GBH views this teaching as doctrine, he has a funny way of showing it. Maybe he didn't have access to the criteria for doctrine available at your siggy?

;-)

[_bcspace]

GBH said "I wouldn't say that" and "that's more a couplet than anything else" when asked if Mormons believe God was once a man. If GBH views this teaching as doctrine, he has a funny way of showing it. Maybe he didn't have access to the criteria for doctrine available at your siggy?

He did say what I thought he did. From your link.....

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.

I think he was simply suprised by the question and warred within himself about answering the question directly or adhering to the milk before meat principle. I personally don't think he did a very good job at it but it doesn't shake my faith that GBH is an imperfect man. The Church itself put out the statement in my siggy and has been teaching the same since the days of SWK and likely even before. The principle itself is found in D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority.

I also think there is another explaination besides my own that is equally likely....

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President_Hinckley_Understand_LDS_Doctrine.html

[_Gazelam]

From the current lesson manual for Priesthood and Relief Society:

Chapter 2: "God the Eternal Father,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007),36–44

When we comprehend the character of God, we comprehend ourselves and know how to approach Him.
“There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

“If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

“… The scriptures inform us that ‘This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ [John 17:3.]

“If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is. …

“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. …

“… Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.”9

This is Doctrine, and was taught by the Savior himself. See John chp. 17

[_Fortigurn]

From the current lesson manual for Priesthood and Relief Society:

But that doesn't mean it's doctrine, or taught by the Church, or that LDS members are supposed to believe it, does it?

[_bcspace]

From the current lesson manual for Priesthood and Relief Society:

But that doesn't mean it's doctrine, or taught by the Church, or that LDS members are supposed to believe it, does it?

If it's taught in a work published by the Church, it's doctrine. That's the way it's been essentially since Correlation and described in the link in my siggy.......

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. 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. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.