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

[_Tator]

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.

Hey, brother of BCSpacey, personally I'm sick of the moving of the Doctrine goalposts when ever the mopologists please.

Is it?

nitpick
nit pick
nit-pick

Choose one!

[_consiglieri]

I think Obiwan has left the building . . .

[_Quasimodo]

And Consig.... Stick it! I'm not interested in your anti-mormon wolf in sheeps clothing views.

Obiwan seems a little cranky today! Someone must have touched a nerve.

[_Rambo]

The even funnier thing is that Obiwan thinks he is talking to people whose only knowledge of Mormonism is from reading pamphlets by counter-cult ministries, rather than lifelong members who are taking issue with his b***s*** characterization of what the LDS Church teaches.

Yeah it almost seems like he is trying to trick "Dad of a Mormon" This whole thing is actually kind of disturbing to me. Here we have an apologist that is clearly lying. No wonder when members of the church have questions about church history and they go to apologists and you get this type of response. Really these guys are a different breed altogether.

[_Tchild]

Obiwan, why do you have a problem with God being a man and us having the chance to become a god. Do you not believe it? If you do then be proud of your beliefs.

To be fair to Obiwan, he did state that he "believed it", just not that it is super-secret, double-official, "official" doctrine:

"Is it true, is it believed, yes. But not doctrine."


Mormons don't like to be told what they believe in, even when their founding prophet is doing the telling. Obiwan is standing in the exceeding long line of cafeteria Mormonism waiting to choose the doctrinal teachings of his liking.

[_Darth J]

The greatest irony in this was already touched on by Blixa. The teaching that God the Father is the same "thing" as we are was always for me both the essence of Mormonism and the best thing it had to offer.

As a believer, the Book of Abraham always seemed to be a little fishy in a way that I couldn't (or wasn't willing to) put my finger on, exactly. But it always was my favorite scripture because it presents a personable, relatable God who is the father of the human race in a very real sense.

The cafeteria Mormon/Mopologist approach is about denying what the Church really teaches doesn't work on apostates. I think for most former believers, it isn't that "as man is now, God once was" is scandalous or blasphemous. It's the misrepresentation of church teachings by the Church's self-appointed defenders that is the problem, because it is flagrantly intellectually dishonest.

[_MrStakhanovite]

And Consig.... Stick it! I'm not interested in your anti-mormon wolf in sheeps clothing views.

To be honest, you really haven't presented much of a case in the face of overwhleming citations and clear explanations. Consig is a great Mormon, because he's simply honest about his faith, and doesn't try to hide behind a fake mask of surety. He is legit. You are not.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

The even funnier thing is that Obiwan thinks he is talking to people whose only knowledge of Mormonism is from reading pamphlets by counter-cult ministries, rather than lifelong members who are taking issue with his b***s*** characterization of what the LDS Church teaches.

Except me. I've been reading the pamphlets. ;)

I first learned about Mormonism when I was a Southern Baptist. After I left that religion and was later confronted with my son's newfound Mormonism, I wasn't sure whether the things I learned about Mormonism from the SBs were right. That's what I like about these boards. I have a chance to find out what Mormons really do believe from people who lived it and are living it.

[_Tator]

Hi tator,

It seems many critics here will wish to die on this particular ant hill. Perhaps some LDS will do the same. But, I stand by my assessment that we all lie. We're all prone to error. I stand by my assessment that GBH's response was a bit rambly, and the only thing that can reasonably be seen as a lie is when he started out by saying "I don't know that we teach it". Lie. Okay. Whatever. I'm over it. I've agreed with critics. I simply don't see the big deal.

I was quite comfortable with Hinckley as prophet. And this little mishap didn't change that for me. He's now gone. Its all over, yet critics will use it to throw in LDS' faces for some reason. Why? Do critics expect LDS prophets to be perfect? LDS might, but that's a different story. Why would critics? Are they just trying to play off the assumptio of some LDS that prophets need to be perfect? I don't know. It seems like a game to me-getting all dramatic about his mess-up. Who cares?

Hey I am okay with your decision on Hinckley for you but I am not okay with that decision for me. I grew up with these prophets being bigger than life. This was the not just the true church but THEE TRUE CHURCH, thee only one on the face of the earth. This was not one of those churches that were in apostasy. The ones that had all the corrupt leaders and the doctrines of men added to them. We had a direct link to god. A mouthpiece of god. He was bigger than life. Joseph Smith was the cream of crop of mankind. Close to perfect. Every prophet after that was the same. Joseph lived a close to perfect life or so I was taught. He didn't even have a drink before, during or after a major leg surgery. Wow what a courageous young man. His moral character was without equal. The teaching goes on and on. The legend lives.

But eventually reality sinks in and I found all this to be window dressing. Doctrine is what the church wants it to be and at the time, the same as what the church claims all the other churches have done throughout history. Prophets speak for god and as men, how do you tell the difference. The "restoration" is just more of the doctrines of men no different than the others they criticize. The Mormon prophets are just as corrupt as the ones they blame in the past. Lying for the Lord/Correlation Committees/Danites/rewriting history/hiding documents in the vault/no power of discernment/no direct link to god/prophets sexual sins/marrying teenagers and married women/guilty of killing(MMM)/then the real sin of apologetics...........the list is endless. THEE TRUE CHURCH is no different than the churches they claim to be better than. The Mormon prophets are just as sinful, corrupt and amoral as all the ones they blame.

The point is I grew up expecting more. I realize that Hinckley was a man and men sin but I expect his sins to be the kind of sins we all do. Like I don't expect him to be any different than me when I hit my thumb with a hammer. I can understand a string of profanity a mile long. Or I can expect him to lie like honest Abe in the GEICO commericial "does this dress make my backside larger" question. But I don't expect a prophet to get on national TV and lie......lie about everything....I expect him not to lie about anything. If he is incompetent, fumbling, failing old man or what ever the excuse he should not be on TV. What are the other 14 apostles doing?

I realize Joseph Smith was a man and men sin but his sins are equal to and may exceed the sins of past prophets and leaders of the very churches he blames and criticizes. He is an example of hypocrisy of whole new level. Just as corrupt as any of the past popes.

I expected more from the leaders of this church because of what I was taught and because of what was expected of me. They have let everyone in the church down from Joseph to present. It is all a con. That is the long story made short, it is all a con. This board exposes that con one thread at a time.

I can't give Joe or Gordie or any of the others a pass like you are.

[_Obiwan]

Listen, it's really simple. I'm not "lying" and president Hinkley didn't "lie" either.
You all should really learn that simply because you can't understand something someone is trying to explain to you, and thus you take the "easy" negative judgment as if that is the actual truth, doesn't mean the those of us who believe things differently are "lying".

President Hinkley and I are trying to explain very "subtle" but important differences in things. We are trying to show you what the Church actually "IS" rather than what you think it is in your negative and degrading judgments.

I mean think of your character. You are calling an amazingly righteous man, the Prophet and President of a major faith a "liar", and you are calling a faithful well experienced and learned of the issues Mormon a "liar".

There is no "scripture" on the Father once being a man, save implied, thus not official.
There is no Official First Presidency announcement that the Father was once a man as we are.
There is no official revelation from God to the Church proclaiming the Father was once a man.
The KFD is not scripture....
on and on....

Thus, not doctrine. Until you have some of those things, you don't have "doctrine", I'm sorry to tell you all. Is the "couplet" good doctrine, sure. But that's the closest we get to it, without actually saying it.

Our "doctrine" is that we can become like the Father. Our "doctrine" is that Christ who is God was once a man. That is our doctrine. The Father himself once being a man is nothing more than inspired speculation, not "official doctrine".