Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

[_Nevo]

So, Nevo,...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"...initially isolated from the rest of this important doctrinal document,...and called into question by Mormon leaders?

I have not claimed that Church leaders discount the teaching or "call it into question." I am merely saying that the doctrine (not being found anywhere in the scriptures) is fairly obscure and not well understood.

By the way, the "first principle of the gospel" in modern Church teaching is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Article of Faith 4)—not "knowing that God the Father was once a man like us."

[_LDS truthseeker]

I think it's a defensible and potentially appealing doctrine. I don't know why the church tries to hide from it.

[_sock puppet]

So, Nevo,...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"...initially isolated from the rest of this important doctrinal document,...and called into question by Mormon leaders?

I have not claimed that Church leaders discount the teaching or "call it into question." I am merely saying that the doctrine (not being found anywhere in the scriptures) is fairly obscure and not well understood.

By the way, the "first principle of the gospel" in modern Church teaching is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Article of Faith 4)—not "knowing that God the Father was once a man like us."

Interesting. Since the Wentworth Letter (the Articles of Faith) predated the King Follett Sermon, one would think the more recent pronouncement by the restoration prophet as to what was the first principle of the gospel would supersede and displace earlier pronouncements, like that in the earlier Articles of Faith. In fact, I think JSJr's pronouncement of the character of god being the first principle of the gospel, which he did on 4/7/1844, was the last time he coronated any enunciated principle as the the "first principle of the gospel".

Maybe Nightlion is right.

[_sock puppet]

So, Nevo,...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"...initially isolated from the rest of this important doctrinal document,...and called into question by Mormon leaders?

I have not claimed that Church leaders discount the teaching or "call it into question." I am merely saying that the doctrine (not being found anywhere in the scriptures) is fairly obscure and not well understood.

By the way, the "first principle of the gospel" in modern Church teaching is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (Article of Faith 4)—not "knowing that God the Father was once a man like us."

So why then are the clear words of JSJr from 4/7/1844 misunderstood by the modern Mormon Church, or would cause confusion to non-Mormons to hear those direct, declarative pronouncements that "God himself was once as we are now" and "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"?

Given that all Larry King asked GBH was whether the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man, how would a "yes" answer have caused confusion and misunderstanding?

What happened between 1982 when Lund, in a Church published magazine, the Ensign, said it is yet a doctrinal teaching of the Mormon Church, and 1997 when GBH was so uncertain?

[_Nevo]

Interesting. Since the Wentworth Letter (the Articles of Faith) predated the King Follett Sermon, one would think the more recent pronouncement by the restoration prophet as to what was the first principle of the gospel would supersede and displace earlier pronouncements, like that in the earlier Articles of Faith.

One would think. Except that the Articles of Faith are part of the canon of scripture and the King Follett Sermon isn't. That could have something to do with it.

Given that all Larry King asked GBH was whether the Mormon Church teaches that elohim was once a man, how would a "yes" answer have caused confusion and misunderstanding?

The statement "God was once a man like us" is not self-explanatory. What does it mean to say that God was once a man like us? Was God like us in every way? Only in some ways? We don't know. It hasn't been revealed.

This is one of those doctrines, like the Heavenly Mother doctrine, about which we just don't know very much.

[_sock puppet]

Interesting. Since the Wentworth Letter (the Articles of Faith) predated the King Follett Sermon, one would think the more recent pronouncement by the restoration prophet as to what was the first principle of the gospel would supersede and displace earlier pronouncements, like that in the earlier Articles of Faith.

One would think. Except that the Articles of Faith are part of the canon of scripture and the King Follett Sermon isn't. That could have something to do with it.

Given that all Larry King asked GBH was whether the Mormon Church teaches that elohim was once a man, how would a "yes" answer have caused confusion and misunderstanding?

The statement "God was once a man like us" is not self-explanatory. What does it mean to say that God was once a man like us? Was God like us in every way? Only in some ways? We don't know. It hasn't been revealed.

This is one of those doctrines, like the Heavenly Mother doctrine, about which we just don't know very much.

Larry King's 1997 question to GBH was simple: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?".

JSJr said, on 4/7/1844, "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".

GBH answered Larry King in 1997: "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."

A politician would be called on the carpet for such obfuscation to a clear and direct question. A religious man that gives lip service to truth is somehow excused for not giving a straight up answer?

[_Pollypinks]

I did get to Revelation. I've spent years watching that book get bastardized and interpreted in very queer ways. And no, I've never, ever, been in a christian church that implies deification. I've been in charismatic churches, baptist churches, no fun there, community christian churches, methodist churches, catholic churches, episcopalian churches, and am currently in a very liberal presbyterian church. I don't think the greek orthodox people believe in deification, nor the adventists, nor the witnesses. I don't think jewish folks think such things. As far as other religions, I don't know. I know about karma, and a little about buddhism since my daughter is one, but that's about it.

[_Pollypinks]

I'm confuthed...... So, the church no longer teaches that God was once a man?

[_Nevo]

I'm confuthed...... So, the church no longer teaches that God was once a man?

The doctrine is still taught. For example, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, which was the manual used in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society classes in 2008 and 2009, contained the following statement from the King Follett Discourse:

"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."

And the current manual, Gospel Principles, states:

"Joseph Smith taught: 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … 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 [1976], 345–46)."

[_Morley]

I'm confuthed...... So, the church no longer teaches that God was once a man?

The doctrine is still taught. For example, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, which was the manual used in Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society classes in 2008 and 2009, contained the following statement from the King Follett Discourse:

"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."

And the current manual, Gospel Principles, states:

"Joseph Smith taught: 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … 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 [1976], 345–46)."

Hmm. I hate to be so obvious, but President Hinkley said, "I don't know that we teach it." But then you say "the doctrine is still taught" and give examples. Which of you is correct?