As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_consiglieri]

I have read it. I'm interested in your answer to the question. Do Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Though you didn't ask me this question, I will answer with a qualified "yes."

Pretty much anybody who knows anything about the King Follett Discourse (as well as the subsquent Sermon at the Grove) believes that God was once a man.

There are lots of members, though, who really don't study much on their own, and just go to church and listen to what is taught there. Because this concept really is not much taught in the thoroughly correlated church meetings, it is quite possible for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching.

I have encountered members who have taken this teaching and applied it to Christ, saying that God (i.e., Christ) did live as a man (on this earth). This strikes me as a popular reimagining of what Joseph Smith was teaching that keeps Mormons within the Christian mainstream. More troulbing are those Mormons who will give this explanation to non-members while privately understanding Joseph Smith meant something different. I have encountered such Mormons. I may have been one at one point.

I think it is clear that this is not what Joseph Smith was talking about, but I could be wrong.

What makes it more difficult is that we don't have the actual words Joseph Smith said. It was a funeral sermon he gave in Nauvoo in 1844 shortly before his death, and there were about four or five gentlemen in the audience who took notes on what Joseph Smith said. They are shorthand in nature and can be found in their original form in a book called The Words of Joseph Smith.

(I think this may have been the basis for some of President Hinckley's equivocation on the issue. It might have been better for him to explain what he meant, but then, he also knew he didn't have time to go into a historical treatise on the subject.)

More common is for Mormons who know anything about the King Follett Discourse to have encountered it in a different book called Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in which the different shorthand accounts were cobbled together into one long sermon.

If memory serves, none of the shorthand accounts contradict the idea that God was once a man, and most if not all mention it. It therefore seems almost indisputable that this is indeed what Joseph Smith taught.

For myself, I do believe it as a theological principle, that God was once a man as we are now.

But I could be wrong . . .

The couplet referred to by President Hinckley was not stated by Joseph Smith, but by an apostle at the time named Wilford Woodruff, who subsequently became the fourth president of the LDS Church and was one of the gentlemen who took copious notes of Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse.

If memory serves, Wilford Woodruff said this concept came to him as if by revelation, but he kept it to himself because he considered it so radical. Wilford later reported he went to Joseph and presented the couplet to Joseph Smith, at which point Joseph Smith confirmed it was true and a revelation from heaven to Wilford Woodruff.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_stemelbow]

Theoretically, could you describe a lie from a prophet that WOULD bother you?

What if he denied the inspiration of the Book of Abraham (which I consider a real, although remote, possibility)?

Or if he denied the Book of Mormon as a whole?

Or that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Is there any line that the prophet might cross that would make you think twice about the truthfulness of the Church?

I think the things you mention would be troublesome. This particular teaching (God was once a man) really is something most LDS don't even think much on, from my perspective. Some vary on its significance and some vary on the details pertaining to it. And as Hinckley rightly said concerning it, we really don't know much about it. Thus, i don't see this as that big a deal. Hope that helps.

[_Pa Pa]

One thing I find fascinating about the LDS church is that it very much seems to be engineered, where they are constantly redefining doctrine but yet still claiming to never back away from their history. Still, the recent statements from Hinckley are hard to imagine:

Question: "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."

Now, I tend to try to put the most positive spin concerning whether a person is lying or just mistaken, but with Hinckley, I don't know how this could be anything but a flat out lie. He KNEW that it was taught, because he even taught it himself. So what was his angle in making this statement? Why are they backing away from this very central part of Mormon theology, or at least it seemed to be in the past?

So in short "Dad of a Mormon", your son or daughter is stupid for believing in the church? Is that your failing or theirs? So if your screen name is correct...one or both have failed, or your child has triumphed. Maybe you should stop thinking they are stupid and listen for a change. The church changes as God wills it…or in yours do you still offer animal sacrifice? Kill homosexuals? Keep women silent in church? Kill back-talking teenagers? Stone women who commit adultery? I guessing your “Church” (if you even have one) does not have 12 Apostles as Christ created it.

[_harmony]

So in short "Dad of a Mormon", your son or daughter is stupid for believing in the church? Is that your failing or theirs? So if your screen name is correct...one or both have failed, or your child has triumphed. Maybe you should stop thinking they are stupid and listen for a change. The church changes as God wills it…or in yours do you still offer animal sacrifice? Kill homosexuals? Keep women silent in church? Kill back-talking teenagers? Stone women who commit adultery? I guessing your “Church” (if you even have one) does not have 12 Apostles as Christ created it.

Why the personal attack, Pa Pa? Dad's done nothing but ask questions. If you were a proper "every Mormon a missionary" type, you'd be answering them and encouraging him to ask many more.

[_Runtu]

Because this concept really is not much taught in the thoroughly correlated church meetings, it is quite possible for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching.

Darth J has shown that it is taught in correlated manuals, which are supposed to be used in church meetings. Unless people are intentionally "straying from the manual," I'd say it's impossible "for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching."

I have encountered members who have taken this teaching and applied it to Christ, saying that God (i.e., Christ) did live as a man (on this earth).

I think it is clear that this is not what Joseph Smith was talking about, but I could be wrong.

No, you're not wrong.

What makes it more difficult is that we don't have the actual words Joseph Smith said. It was a funeral sermon he gave in Nauvoo in 1844 shortly before his death, and there were about four or five gentlemen in the audience who took notes on what Joseph Smith said. They are shorthand in nature and can be found in their original form in a book called The Words of Joseph Smith.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter exactly what Joseph taught. The teaching as you and I understand it has been taught consistently by the church before and after correlation.

(I think this may have been the basis for some of President Hinckley's equivocation on the issue. It might have been better for him to explain what he meant, but then, he also knew he didn't have time to go into a historical treatise on the subject.)

I don't think it needs a historical treatise. The doctrine is clear. The treatise would only be necessary to avoid freaking out non-Mormons.

[_Quasimodo]

You are brilliant!

Of course, Irene Adler, whom if memory serves, Holmes always referred to simply as "the lady."

I wish I could be in your class . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Me too! Both definitions of the word.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

So in short "Dad of a Mormon", your son or daughter is stupid for believing in the church? Is that your failing or theirs? So if your screen name is correct...one or both have failed, or your child has triumphed. Maybe you should stop thinking they are stupid and listen for a change. The church changes as God wills it…or in yours do you still offer animal sacrifice? Kill homosexuals? Keep women silent in church? Kill back-talking teenagers? Stone women who commit adultery? I guessing your “Church” (if you even have one) does not have 12 Apostles as Christ created it.

Thank you for pointing out that this is my fault and speculating about the intelligence of my son. Good form. :( [/sarcasm]

I did consider Mormonism. Even asked God that if Mormonism is true, he would reveal it to me. (I'm an atheist personally, but I felt that if I was going to be fair, I should be open as best I could to the possibility that I am wrong.) My wife, on the other hand, who does believe in God and also believes that she has a personal relationship with God, is convinced that this is the work of Satan, a view I reject.

I personally think smart people believe dumb things for all sorts of reasons. I won't deny that the more I investigate Mormonism, the weirder it seems to me. But it isn't because I was totally closed to the idea. It was because my personal investigation has shown me numerous reasons to conclude that the foundational claims of Mormonism are not true. I don't think my son knows all the details and I'm not sure how open he is to receiving new information. At this point, I think he believes primarily because of social reasons and because of an inner feeling that it feels right that he interprets to be the Holy Spirit. (Same reason my wife doesn't believe in Mormonism.)

But thanks for the judgement.

[_consiglieri]

Darth J has shown that it is taught in correlated manuals, which are supposed to be used in church meetings. Unless people are intentionally "straying from the manual," I'd say it's impossible "for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching."

You (and Darth) may be right about this. God knows I tend to shift my brain into neutral while at church.

But my experience has been that whenever this couplet comes up, the tendency is to focus on the "man may become" part rather than the "God once was" part.

Except for two years ago in my Gospel Doctrine class when we "parted from the manual" to get knee deep into the King Follett Discourse . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Tchild]

Pretty much anybody who knows anything about the King Follett Discourse (as well as the subsquent Sermon at the Grove) believes that God was once a man.

There are lots of members, though, who really don't study much on their own, and just go to church and listen to what is taught there. Because this concept really is not much taught in the thoroughly correlated church meetings, it is quite possible for a person to go to church their whole life and never encounter this teaching.

What makes it more difficult is that we don't have the actual
For myself, I do believe it as a theological principle, that God was once a man as we are now.

While the church may not dedicate specific lessons or teachings about "God, once a man" (nothing has been "revealed" about the details) the idea is so interwoven into the doctrines of the church that to understand it otherwise is to be completely confused about church teachings.

Let's start with the first vision account -- God appears to Joseph Smith in the grove in a human form; a body of flesh and bone, in a body almost identically similar to Jesus Christ -- who was born a man, lived, died and resurrected. Jesus looks just like God, but God was never a human being?

Would a believer infer that God has eternally been in hominid form with hair, eyes, ears, nose, arms, legs etc etc and all the human forms and appendages necessary to survival on a biologically based terrestial world, but wholly unneeded for an eternal and supreme being?

The core tenets of the church are:
1) Get a body
2) Be tested
3) Accept the atoning sacrifice of the savior
4) live with God again - become a God.

How could a person not believe that God was once a man given the doctrinal connect-the-dots of Mormon belief and teachings?

[_stemelbow]

No, it's just that it's part of a long pattern of spinning and hedging on difficult questions. Goes hand in hand with that Robert Millet talk about how we should answer the questions that should have been asked, not the ones that were actually asked.

As you can see, I'm not really into spinning and hedging on difficult questions, or I try not to be. I doubt I'd be alone on this among the LDS. I find it to be a poor tack.