Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Nevo »

sock puppet wrote:How would a direct answer to the concise question posed by Larry King, an answer consistent with the exact words of JSJr on the topic, have led to confusion and misunderstanding?

Well, for starters, Joseph's statement "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." might cause some confusion.

Was there ever a time when God the Father was not God? That isn't a settled issue in LDS thought.

Blake Ostler writes in volume 3 of his series Exploring Mormon Thought: "I believe that until recently almost all Mormons believed that Joseph Smith taught that God progressed to become fully divine from a lower state of non-divinity. Thus, it was believed that God the Father became God; before that, he was something less than God. During the eternal period before which he was 'God,' or fully divine, he worshipped and was subject to another God, who was more ultimate than he was." However, Ostler himself maintains that the Father was not only fully divine before becoming mortal (as the Son was), but that he is the "head God who is the supreme God of all other gods." In other words, God the Father was always God and there never was and never will be a God above him.

Why would Gordon B. Hinckley ever want to open this can of worms on Larry King Live?
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _sock puppet »

Nevo wrote:
sock puppet wrote:How would a direct answer to the concise question posed by Larry King, an answer consistent with the exact words of JSJr on the topic, have led to confusion and misunderstanding?

Well, for starters, Joseph's statement "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." might cause some confusion.

Was there ever a time when God the Father was not God? That isn't a settled issue in LDS thought.

Blake Ostler writes in volume 3 of his series Exploring Mormon Thought: "I believe that until recently almost all Mormons believed that Joseph Smith taught that God progressed to become fully divine from a lower state of non-divinity. Thus, it was believed that God the Father became God; before that, he was something less than God. During the eternal period before which he was 'God,' or fully divine, he worshipped and was subject to another God, who was more ultimate than he was." However, Ostler himself maintains that the Father was not only fully divine before becoming mortal (as the Son was), but that he is the "head God who is the supreme God of all other gods." In other words, God the Father was always God and there never was and never will be a God above him.

Why would Gordon B. Hinckley ever want to open this can of worms on Larry King Live?

Ostler's musings on whether there was a god to which elohim worshipped (not something that Larry King inquired about) somehow negates or confuses JSJr saying "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;...", which answers Larry King's question succinctly and completely?

Really, Ostler on a related topic obfuscates a clear statement by the restoration prophet? The Mormon pecking order must be in complete disarray as compared to what I knew to be for decades before my apostasy in 1985.
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Nightlion »



Blake Ostler writes :In other words, God the Father was always God and there never was and never will be a God above him.



I just don't know that LDS will ever catch up. They are losing light faster than the world loses virgins.

The tracks that Joseph Smith declared Christ followed his father and inherits what the father did before is AN ETERNAL ROUND OF A COURSE. Hear it oh Israel!

1 Ne. 10: 19
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

D&C 35: 1
1 Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.


Christ said to the Jews: "what and if ye shall see me ascend up to where I was before"

This is why Christ is not in a glorified perfectly resurrected body but one that retains his scars, because it will be discarded and that is why the sacrament was implemented so that the disposal of the body and blood of Christ will be a complete spiritual evaporation as those elements diffuse into all those who ever worthily partook of its emblems.

Since the Holy Ghost is next in line to go down and be the Christ for the next generation of the heavens he will need to get a clone of the Father to host his term as a Redeemer. The only thing weird is that there is only one who sits upon the very throne of power. And it is always the same body that ever sat there. But the three of them take their turns at where they were before. So Holy Ghost means that personage has left the body of the Holy Father. Who can not understand this?

This is the eternal round of God the Eternal Father. All three of them are the same. For in the beginning when intelligence was brought forth from the light of truth and given independent existence Jesus Christ commanded and spoke the word of the will of Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost carried the command to administer the knowledge given to each respective sphere of independent existence. HENCE: All three are the Very Eternal Father. And that is what the Book of Mormon says about Christ. That he is the Very Eternal Father. It used to say it a lot and they took most of it out.

They each get to go be a kid again and forget about eternity and all that every third turn. Cool I say. Exalted little 'g' gods are like unto God in that they also lay down their lives to have them back again as per the Garden of Eden.

So it is true that God who sits enthroned in yonder heavens was not ALWAYS on the throne. I do not think Joseph Smith had the complete picture or he would have corrected misunderstandings in the short time he had left.

ETA: Oh, I forgot. The reason I wrote here was not to bla bla bla what has been ignored, ignored, ignored so many times before. But to ask Sock Puppet to change his avatar soon. It reminds me of an old acquaintance that I just ran into lately. Bugs the crap out of me.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _moksha »

sock puppet wrote:
moksha wrote:I think President Hinckley was clarifying past speculations by admitting that we really don't know much about those speculations, especially when those speculations were advanced as extensions of Polygamy Theology.

How can you tell that Msgr was merely speculating in the King Follett Sermon when +++


It would first help if we answered the question of whether polygamy was something God requested or just a ruse to explain away sexual dalliances. If the latter was concluded then subsequent extensions of this ruse are obviously speculations.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Pollypinks
_Emeritus
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:36 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Pollypinks »

The quotes from biblical passages seem to be perfect examples of how Mormons can extrapolate godliness where none exists. For example, Romans speaks of heirs-entered into their inheritance with Christ by grace. I don't see anything speaking of becoming a god here. Galatians also has the same reference to inheritance. Everyone makes such ado about Revelation that I'm not even going there today. I'm out of time. But Peter speaks of participating in divine nature because we are indwelt with the holy spirit, through grace, not through progressing to godhood. I can't let this Mormon take on stuff pass me by, even though I claim not to be a perfect scriptorian.
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Nevo »

sock puppet wrote:Ostler's musings on whether there was a god to which elohim worshipped (not something that Larry King inquired about) somehow negates or confuses JSJr saying "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;...", which answers Larry King's question succinctly and completely?

No, the succinct answer to Larry King's question would have been "Yes" or "No." But neither of those answers is really satisfactory. You couldn't say that it isn't a teaching of the Church because it is found in Church materials. Yet it is seldom taught or discussed, never emphasized, and nobody really knows what it means anyhow—the Prophet included. So I thought President Hinckley's response was apt. But now I'm just repeating myself.

Pollypinks wrote:The quotes from biblical passages seem to be perfect examples of how Mormons can extrapolate godliness where none exists.... I can't let this Mormon take on stuff pass me by, even though I claim not to be a perfect scriptorian.

This isn't just a "Mormon take" on these passages. As Phillip pointed out earlier, "deification (properly understood) has always been a doctrine of the apostolic churches in both the East and the West."

It is too bad that you didn't get to the passage in Revelation, because it explains what it means to be a "joint-heir" with Christ: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21). To sit on a heavenly throne implies godhood of a sort.
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Morley »

moksha wrote:It would first help if we answered the question of whether polygamy was something God requested or just a ruse to explain away sexual dalliances. If the latter was concluded then subsequent extensions of this ruse are obviously speculations.


What's your answer to this question, moksha?
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _sock puppet »

GBH, on Sunday afternoon, June 26, 1994, at the Nauvoo Temple Site said:

GBH, reported in 9/94 Ensign wrote:This building was to be concerned with the things of eternity. It was to stand as a witness to all who should look upon it that those who built it had a compelling faith and a certain knowledge that the grave is not the end, but that the soul is immortal and goes on growing. In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.


GBH wasn't limiting this 'important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church' to exclude the nature of god, or as JSJr claimed it's importance, "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;... ."

In the 6/94 Ensign, "7 Apr. 1844: Delivers King Follett Discourse, a doctrinal landmark", listed among the Highlights in the Prophet's Life

in the 7/79 Ensign, " 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.” (History of the Church, 6:305; this is from the King Follett funeral sermon.)"

In the 4/71 Ensign, you might notice the subtitle, The Character of God.

So, Nevo, if not for GBH on-the-fly in answering Larry King's concise question in 1997, when was the part of JSJr's King Follett Sermon explaining that it is "the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ... and that He was once a man like us", when had this 'first principle of the gospel' initially isolated from the rest of this important doctrinal document, the monumental address (GBH in 94), a doctrinal landmark (Ensign, also 94), and called into question by Mormon leaders?
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _Some Schmo »

Anyone ever notice how close the word 'deification' is to the word 'defecation'? They're close in meaning too. Both happen when someone is full of crap.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

Post by _sock puppet »

As far as human deification being a doctrine of the modern Mormon Church, see Gerald N Lund's answer here in the I Have a Question section of the 2/82 Ensign, which concludes "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Snow, you might recall, coined the couplet, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may be".

Lund's answer shed's light on historical indices--
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.
Post Reply