Obiwan wrote:
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 have read the KFD many times. The only thing it says about The Father being a man like Christ is where Joseph Smith refers to Jesus doing the same things he saw the Father do. And as I noted I do not have a problem with this position, that The Father's earth life was as a savior of a world.
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.
I am sorry but I cannot see how one can argue that when the Church publishes this in its manuals over and over again, and when it leaders teach it from the pulpit in the Church's conference as well as in articles in the Church's magazines how you can say it is not doctrine. It is a bad defense. In the past two years there was an article in the Ensign by Elder Oaks where he refers to God being a man. I would look it up but I am busy and I am sure you would call it mine quoting.
The Church being more "lazie-faire" in what it allowed taught prior to some 30 years ago, doesn't mean everything taught is doctrine.
I am not sure I agree with this argument either but even if I did in the past 30 years this has been taught in LDS publication.
The Church teaches lots of things that aren't doctrine, from financial principles to moral principles, etc.
I key part of our doctrinal theology is what Hinckley called it in the article Darth J provided above. That is hardly the same as finances.
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 itself says what is publishes is doctrine. One of your fellow apologists, BC Space argues that what the Church publishes about doctrine is more doctrinal than the scriptures. I think you and he would not agree on this point.
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.
I am not an enemy of the Church. I am an active participating member. I may not be the TBM I once was but I still support and participate. I just want apologists to be honest about what the Church teaches and has taught. And I am not using this doctrine against the Church. I always thought it was one of the great unique LDS doctrines that set it apart. I am troubled when some self proclaimed defender wants to down play what is doctrine and I am not sure why you are doing it? Just to save face for GBH? I mean really just admit he waffled. No big deal. He was human.
Any nuance of history people like you try and make such "the Church" when they never were the Church.
I am not sure I get you point here.
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.
I go to church every Sunday as well. I agree that it is taught less but it is still in the manuals and is and had been taught as doctrine.
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.
Talk to BC Space. It meets his definition of doctrine. Stephen Robinson in How Wide the Divide said it was doctrine for the very reason I have stated here. Look I know when I did apologetics I argued like you that all I had to account for was canon and FP statements. I argued that manuals did not constitute official doctrine. I was what I called a minimalist. But I got to the point I felt that lacked integrity. How can what the Church publishes and teaches not be considered its doctrine? I could no longer make that and many other defenses. But I was much like you in my line of argument except I never argued that God as a man was 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.
I keep telling you that you have nothing up on many here. I attend Church now, faithfully and have most of my 51 years. I have been a bishop and many other callings. I hols a responsible calling now. I was a hobby apologist like you for at least 8-10 years. You are no more an insider than I am. It is not quote mining to who you exactly what the Church teaches in it manuals.
Your quote mining is evidence, but it's not the truth.
I simply read what the Church teaches in its own manuals and publications. Why should I believe you over them? It is truth the LDS Church teaches as doctrine that God was once a man.
Do you understand the difference?
Do you?
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?
Huh?
I mean, I thought the Prophet Himself already made clear that it's not doctrine?
He said in an official publication that it is doctrine. Why do you accept an interview over that?
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???
It does not have to be in the canon to be doctrine. If the Church publishes and consistently teaches it it becomes doctrine.
Doctrine as a bear minimum must come from revealed scripture PERIOD.
Wrong. That is not what the Church said in that press release about doctrine a few years ago.
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.
I am in it day in and day out for 51 years as well and I know very well what the Church teaches. You have nothing on me in experience in this Church.
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.
Dude was much better than what I felt like calling you after your attack. Consider it a term of endearment. And I could care less about what you think about my intellect and experience. Your continues plea for us to consider yours falls short really based on the nonsensical argument you continue to make.
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.
As noted I had been a hobby aplogist for 8-10 years before I became more NOMish in my views. Before that I have been an active and very well read member both in history and doctrine. I was a student of the life of Joseph Smith and had read dozens of books about him. My shelves are full of LDS books as well as FARMS and Nibley.
I've known for some 30 years that this wasn't doctrine,
Well you made an error on this one then.
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.
The well educated? Oh please! You are really arrogant and you show that your hubris blinds you. So 90% of the active LDS who believe this is doctrine are just stupid for believing what the manuals and Ensigns teach on this? Maybe there should be a qualifier on this then that it is just a belief and not a doctrine. You know a footnote or asterisk reference each time it is referred too. And where Obiwan is this distinction of official and unofficial doctrine highlighted for the average dumber than you Mormon to read?
Oh the games a defender must play to twist and bend the truth. It is defenses like yours that led me down the path I headed from hobby defender to more NOMish in my LDS life.