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.
"The Church officially teaches it, but it is not official doctrine."
As soon as you are prepared to explain how there is a meaningful conceptual difference between "that which is officially taught" and "official doctrine," you let everyone know, okay?
Obiwan wrote:Christ is God, God was once a man, we can become like God. That is in fact doctrine of the Church.
Strange that I posted this at 7:48 this morning:
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 troubling 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.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Obiwan wrote:Taking it beyond that, such as applying it to the Father, is simply not LDS doctrine.
Sorry Obiwan, you have been trumped officially by the Ensign:
“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.
Blixa wrote: 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.
That really would means something if he had not consistently done this in different interviews with different media outlets.
lie: 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement. 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
Obiwan wrote: Yes we believe it in relation to the Father, but it's not Doctrine. Yes we believe it in relation to Christ, that is Doctrine.
You are completely full of crap.
There have been numerous examples in this thread showing that it is the actual, for-real, official doctrine of the LDS Church that Elohim used to be a mortal man.
Your ipse dixit does not change objective reality.
People.... Just because the Church today for the last 30 some years is trying to be more "doctrinally accurate" doesn't mean something that was taught was/is taught was/is doctrine.
The idea of the Father being once a man is meant to be understood by revelation. There is no scripture, and no official revelation to the Church that the Father was once a man. Thus, it's not doctrine, and it never was.
Is it true, is it believed, yes. But not doctrine. Why are you people so offended about better "accuracy" and clarity of things???
This is just like the blacks and the priesthood. There is no such thing as a blacks and the priesthood ban. There was an African Decent ban, not blacks. Many many blacks all over the world were given the Priesthood, ones just as black as any African black, as well as all other colors.
I believe in being absolutely accurate with things. Don't blaim us for your lack of understandings of LDS theology.
Obiwan wrote:People.... Just because the Church today for the last 30 some years is trying to be more "doctrinally accurate" doesn't mean something that was taught was/is taught was/is doctrine.
Opinion of man alert! opinion of man alert!
Who are the members going to believe, Obiwan or their lying eyes after reading the church's official publication, The Ensign?
I believe in being absolutely accurate with things. Don't blaim us for your lack of understandings of LDS theology.
You're the internet Mormon who is clueless about LDS teachings and belief.