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

[_Obiwan]

Back to the subject, please.

Why do you think the KFD, while not canonized, is all over the endowment?

What parts? The part that the Father was once a man as Christ was once a man?
I don't remember that ever being in the Endowment, and that is the only thing I've ever argued as not being official doctrine.

[_madeleine]

I dunno , the church I left a couple of decades ago was very clear in teaching that God the Father was once a man, the same as any other man. No one backed away from this teaching.

I can see how a person who never was taught this, or heard it in their entire life would stumble in Mormonism now and take the stance that it is an interesting Joseph Smith musing, and nothing more. But that isn't how it was prior to 1970-80ish.

[_Tchild]

I would like to know if this might apply to me?

As Darth J. once was, Tchild may become? Or, as Simon was once, Tchild prays to god, begs and petitions to never become?

[_Obiwan]

I would not say specifically but it certainly implies that the Father's sojourn as a mortal man was much like that of Jesus. I have no problem with the position that the Father was a savior of a world like Jesus. And in fact, in my own speculative musings I figure the Father,or the Eternal God of all other gods, as the intelligence that was more intelligent than all other intelligences combined, started the whole process. He realized to progress he/we needed a physical body. So he created the first earth with humans and he was the Savior for that world and that got the process started.

Actually it DOES specifically state that. Would recommend you read the KFD again.
The first mention doesn't state he was as Christ, but was a man like us, the next mention I think a paragraph or two later states that he was once a man as Christ was.

I would agree, I have no problem either, and your musings are reasonable.

I may not be scripture or revelation but it is doctrine by the fact that it has been preached and taught over and over again from general conference pulpits and published by the Church in its manuals and in its magazines. This makes it doctrine. Period. You are simply wrong about this.

Not really, if you look at the full history of what the Church has taught, it has either mentioned the cuplet, and then taught mans nature and potential. It has rarely taught that the Father was once a man. Yes, it's a common belief, and has been taught as some, but, it actually isn't doctrine. The Church being more "lazie-faire" in what it allowed taught prior to some 30 years ago, doesn't mean everything taught is doctrine.

The Church teaches lots of things that aren't doctrine, from financial principles to moral principles, etc.

Yes it is doctrine. Apologists for some odd reason want to weasel out of this. Not sure why.

It's not about "weaseling", it's about trying to be more "accurate" on what is and isn't doctrine of the Church. The Church has learned it's lesson for the some 150 years of less "control" over it's message, that the enemies of the Church now use against it, just as you are doing right now. Any nuance of history people like you try and make such "the Church" when they never were the Church.

There are a plethora of references to God the Father being a man from the KFD in LDS manuals. It was is not a rare thing. Darth and others have already shown that here. Why are you so anxious to do away with this doctrine? I think you are a heretic and if I were you SP and you were teaching this in Church I might have to bring you up for a DC.

I actually go to Church every Sunday, and have for years in many many wards and areas, and it's NOT DOCTRINE. I almost never here it taught. Hinkley told the truth.

Listen LDS have taught it because it is a "mystery truth" in the Gospel of Christ. But it simply is not "officially" doctrine. That's all I'm saying. I believe it, I believe it's true, I've read the things for myself, I know most LDS believe it, but I also know it's rarely taught, and when it is, it's generally taught as revealed truth, not doctrine.

Yes and you should practice what you preach. Personal opinion does not make something not doctrine either. We have evidence. You have posturing and opinion.

I don't know what it is with anti-mormons that they think that their quote-mining is actual evidence, compared to me a Mormon who lives the Faith daily, who has been an anti-mormon, who have studied Mormonism inside and out from all perspectives, someone who knows what the FULL evidences show.

Your quote mining is evidence, but it's not the truth. Do you understand the difference?
Further, I don't know why you all think that your ready quote mining attacks and that because we don't have ready quotemined rebuttles doesn't mean we don't know what we teach. Plus, what exactly evidence am I supposed to give? You want some statement condeming the doctrine?

I mean, I thought the Prophet Himself already made clear that it's not doctrine?

Anyway, doctrine is not the same as belief.

And you are simply full of it. We know the doctrine as well and even apparently better than you. Were I a TBM I would be pretty upset with you for attempting to do away with an important LDS doctrine.

I'm doing away with "inaccuracy's" not doctrine. The Father once being a man simply has never been doctrine. Name the scripture for me please???

Doctrine as a bear minimum must come from revealed scripture PERIOD.

I do not accept false doctrine from false teachers. You sir are the sinner. Obiwan, ask around. Ask your ward and stake members. Ask the next GA you meet. Ask is it doctrine of the Church that God the Father was once a man. See what you get.

Such a test would mean nothing, because most would innocently believe that common belief translates into doctrine. Further, I've already told you that we don't teach it. Indirectly yes we teach it, such as mentioning the cuplet in various publications, but we DO NOT directly teach it. I'm in this religion day in and day out, and have been combating your kind for years, and I know very well what this church teaches.

We can see that Obiwan is now desperate so he turns to degradations and personal attacks.

I'm allowed to attack those who misrepresent and degrade. Cops aren't the bad guys.

Look dude, I have studied this issue over and over as a 51 year LDS person. Never, ever have I heard anyone other than a few odd apologists argue this is not doctrine. You are the one who is full of arrogance and hubris. GAs teach it and taught is as DOCTRINE.

Someone using the phrase "look dude" doesn't give me much confidence in your intellectual skills and experience. But let me ask you, did you also spend 51 years combating anti-mormonism and being an anti-mormon yourself, and also being anti-religion, etc. etc.? Age doesn't determine intelligence, but experience, objectivity, wisdom etc. does.

I've known for some 30 years that this wasn't doctrine, even before leaving the Church, and also knowing at the same time that it was often taught and believed as such by many. Of course, the well educated knew to differentiate it from doctrine by calling it unofficial doctrine or a common belief and possibility because that's what it actually is.

[_Obiwan]

I dunno , the church I left a couple of decades ago was very clear in teaching that God the Father was once a man, the same as any other man. No one backed away from this teaching.

I can see how a person who never was taught this, or heard it in their entire life would stumble in Mormonism now and take the stance that it is an interesting Joseph Smith musing, and nothing more. But that isn't how it was prior to 1970-80ish.

Critics confuse common belief and even teaching as being the same as official doctrine.
Not the same thing.

[_madeleine]

I dunno , the church I left a couple of decades ago was very clear in teaching that God the Father was once a man, the same as any other man. No one backed away from this teaching.

I can see how a person who never was taught this, or heard it in their entire life would stumble in Mormonism now and take the stance that it is an interesting Joseph Smith musing, and nothing more. But that isn't how it was prior to 1970-80ish.

Critics confuse common belief and even teaching as being the same as official doctrine.
Not the same thing.

This always amuses me. It was taught at every level, from primary to adults in Sunday school. It wasn't some folksy anomaly that only Brother Smith (who is kind of crazy anyway) believed.

This approach you have going always leaves me wondering why Mormons taught non-doctrinal teachings to their children, like myself, and how such a child would know what is official doctrine is and isn't. Me, I remember being taught to trust what I was taught at church. Mormons these days, don't seem to have this trust.

[_why me]

Sorry, I just buy it that he intentionally lied.

Was this a Freudian slip?

As I have been thinking about this over the weekend, Lehi's Dream of the Tree of Life came to mind.

If President Hinckley is avoiding the question to keep people in the great and spacious building from mocking him, is he still at the tree of life?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I meant to correct it but then I forgot. It should have read "I just can't buy...."

I see no reason to intentionally lie. The blowback from the membership would have been fierce. And he would have needed to go into damage control immediately. This doctrine is actively taught in church. Nothing is hidden. I still say that he misunderstood the question and got confused. That would make more sense than lying about something that most people reading Time could care less about.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Critics confuse common belief and even teaching as being the same as official doctrine.
Not the same thing.

When you say "critics", are you referring to Mormon prophets and official church publications? Because both have said this is "doctrine".

Does it bother you that the highest leaders in your church apparently don't know what doctrine is?

[_why me]

Mormons these days, don't seem to have this trust.

We should avoid generalizations. But when it comes to Mormons people make generalizations. Why? I have no idea. It would be like someone saying catholics these days do not seem to follow the counsel on birth control.

[_why me]

Does it bother you that the highest leaders in your church apparently don't know what doctrine is?

Why would you think that they don't know what doctrine is? I think that they do. Now can a 89 or soyear old man get confused over a question? I think so. What is sad, dad, is that a man who gave his life to his church and to Christ would be raked over the coals over this. But...such is life today...