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

[_Ceeboo]

I think consig, you want to hear what you want to hear and don't hear what you don't want to hear.

I'm sorry.

Did you say something?

A literal laugh out loud :)

Love you Consig!

Peace and blessings,
Ceeboo

[_why me]

I think consig, you want to hear what you want to hear and don't hear what you don't want to hear.

I'm sorry.

Did you say something?

Who?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Did you say something?

Who?

Why.

(Of course.)

[_Blixa]

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.

I agree with you, Tchild, that the concept that God was once a man ties everything together in Mormon theology. I believe it was for that reason that Joseph Smith proclaimed it as "the great secret" in the King Follett Discourse.

Denying this teaching undercuts most of Mormonism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Absolutely! It is at the very center of Mormonism, and like runtu and Darth J, I think it would be very hard for any member to miss that (allowing, of course, for the number of empty minds present in any demographic). And for me it was always one of the most appealing ideas in Mormonism, having a beauty and majesty that was sadly missing in the contemporary culture of repetitive conference talks, rote Sunday School lessons, abysmal architecture, ill-fitting suits and ties, pantyhose and pastel matron wear.

That's why Hinckley's evasive and lying statements angered me; they seemed a far worse anti-mormon insult than claiming that God lives in a harem on Kolob or that the temple is decorated with Satanic pentagrams.

[_why me]

That's why Hinckley's evasive and lying statements angered me; they seemed a far worse anti-mormon insult than claiming that God lives in a harem on Kolob or that the temple is decorated with Satanic pentagrams.

Bulldinky. He didn't lie. If you would read the fairlds material I linked to, you would see that. But your understanding is so instilled into your critic mindset, that your mind can not be changed. But you will see what was left out of the printed version of Time if you look at the links.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

That's why Hinckley's evasive and lying statements angered me; they seemed a far worse anti-mormon insult than claiming that God lives in a harem on Kolob or that the temple is decorated with Satanic pentagrams.

Bulldinky. He didn't lie. If you would read the fairlds material I linked to, you would see that. But your understanding is so instilled into your critic mindset, that your mind can not be changed. But you will see what was left out of the printed version of Time if you look at the links.

Did you see the SF Chronicle interview? You haven't explained that one yet.

[_Obiwan]

Dad of a Mormon....

I forgot to mention one other important thing.
The couplet in question while it's not overly emphasized in the Church, it is sometimes still taught such as in the Gospel Principles manual because it is a True statement.

Christ is God, God was once a man, we can become like God.
That is in fact doctrine of the Church.

Taking it beyond that, such as applying it to the Father, is simply not LDS doctrine. Do we believe it to be true, yes. Christ himself implied such. He said he did nothing he hadn't seen His Father do. Think about that, what else can that statement mean or apply to? Nothing. The Father clearly was once mortal. And the King Follet Discourse verifies this also. Joseph said the Father was once a man like Christ was.

Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear.

[_zeezrom]

Bulldinky. He didn't lie. If you would read the fairlds material I linked to, you would see that. But your understanding is so instilled into your critic mindset, that your mind can not be changed. But you will see what was left out of the printed version of Time if you look at the links.

He may not have had the intention of lying as he went into this interview. I think he got scared. He buckled under the pressure and caved. It would be analogous to a bishop interview with a youth - the youth being GBH in this example. The youth goes in with the intent to provide a shining story of himself. Then the bishop throws a curve ball - he asks the youth - "Have you ever necked?" The youth stammers and falters under the pressure of the moment. He knows he kissed some girls neck just the other night at a party but at the moment he makes a quick decision. "My image is most important since my parents would ground me if they found out I was not worthy to go to the temple this week and that would have a domino effect." he thinks to himself. So he blurts out, "Uh Bishop? What is necking?"

Anyway, you get the idea. Pres Hinckley did not mean to be a liar going into this. He simply caved under the pressure to maintain an image he had been working on for so many years. He wasn't about to let a simple little question destroy that for him.

[_zeezrom]

Christ is God, God was once a man, we can become like God.
That is in fact doctrine of the Church.

Taking it beyond that, such as applying it to the Father, is simply not LDS doctrine.

Whoa there! I feel like I'm at MDD all of a sudden. No, this is not right. The doctrine was that God is Heavenly Father and this God was once a man. You know that, Obiwan.

[_Tchild]

Dad of a Mormon....


Christ is God, God was once a man, we can become like God.
That is in fact doctrine of the Church.

Anyway, I just wanted to make that clear.

How does God the father have a body of flesh and bone? Do Gods need bones to support their flesh frames, and hair to protect from solar radiation, and eyes to pick up photons of light, and ears to hear sound propogated through atmospheric mediums and .....