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

[_Nightlion]

2. How many times it has been pointed out in this thread that the essential message from the King Follett Sermon---that God the Father at one time was a mortal man and progressed to become God---is taught in official LDS curricula, making it simply a tautology to observe that this is official doctrine;

There is no mention of the Father progressing to become God. He was like Christ and Christ was in the beginning with God and was God.

Joseph did mention our progress to become gods ourselves. Hence all the confusion since. Nobody ever sat down to sift through the scripture and make sense of it all until 1983. And the Mormons hated me for doing it then just as much as the still hate me for continuing to make better sense of the Restoration than they do.

[_Runtu]

Although I think it can be more charitably viewed as "fudging" the answer, that is exactly what it means.

As a long-time Mormon, I can tell you that there a number of beliefs we have that we are accustomed to others making fun of; that seem strange and tend to put non-members off. We feel this way because of the way it is mocked and ridiculed by others from time to time.

On the other hand, we are directed that every member should be a missionary, and that this means being a "good example" of the gospel in the way we conduct ourselves, and taking (and making) every opportunity to talk about the gospel with others.

"Talking about the gospel" does not mean talking about the "deeper" or "odder" aspects of our beliefs, but sharing basic concepts such as the Book of Mormon and the restoration through Joseph Smith. Implicit is the idea that we should do nothing with non-members that might cause them to doubt the truth of the restored gospel message, and that bringing up "meat before milk" has a tendency to do just that.

Add all these things together, and you have Mormons who understand that you do not want to talk about Heavenly Mother, or God once being a man, in front of a non-member, and heaven forbid on national TV.

This is so intertwined with what it is to be a Mormon, it is difficult to separate them.

And so, when President Hinckley was asked this question in the media, his natural reaction was to do what any good Mormon would do--fudge the answer. Note he didn't outright deny it. That is what I would have considered a "lie." Instead, he tried to defuse it by admitting that something like it had been taught once in the dim, dark past, but that we don't really know much about it and don't really teach it in church.

I don't know if this makes sense to you, Madeleine, but I guarantee it will resonate with most folks who are or have been Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That is exactly right. That's what he did, and why he did it. Seems obvious to me.

[_consiglieri]

And the Mormons hated me for doing it then just as much as the still hate me for continuing to make better sense of the Restoration than they do.

I hate it when people do that.

[cacheman]

And the Mormons hated me for doing it then just as much as the still hate me for continuing to make better sense of the Restoration than they do.

I hate it when people do that.

For some reason, I have a hard time thinking that anything that involves Eve's first ovulation being removed and then implanted into the Virgin Mary is making "better sense of the Restoration."

[_Nightlion]

I must be writing in Chinese. I have said over and over again that key issues in the KFD are doctrine but the sermon is not. Geez...hopefully what I just wrote is in english.

Spoken in General Conference and the people said AMEN. What is not doctrine is the stupid interpretations imagined by Brigham Young who claimed no revelation on the subject and admitted he did not care which way it turns out to be true. The tares were all over this too makings themselves great big future gods over their eternal dominions by adoption and plural marriages. Gentiles grabbing franchises like there was no tomorrow. Greedy little buggers. These Gentiles who refused Zion were well played by God to bring forth accountability to the fall and apostasy of Babylon the Great.

[_madeleine]

What does that mean? That he didn't want to talk about doctrine that he knew is controversial? So he lied?

Although I think it can be more charitably viewed as "fudging" the answer, that is exactly what it means.

As a long-time Mormon, I can tell you that there a number of beliefs we have that we are accustomed to others making fun of; that seem strange and tend to put non-members off. We feel this way because of the way it is mocked and ridiculed by others from time to time.

On the other hand, we are directed that every member should be a missionary, and that this means being a "good example" of the gospel in the way we conduct ourselves, and taking (and making) every opportunity to talk about the gospel with others.

"Talking about the gospel" does not mean talking about the "deeper" or "odder" aspects of our beliefs, but sharing basic concepts such as the Book of Mormon and the restoration through Joseph Smith. Implicit is the idea that we should do nothing with non-members that might cause them to doubt the truth of the restored gospel message, and that bringing up "meat before milk" has a tendency to do just that.

Add all these things together, and you have Mormons who understand that you do not want to talk about Heavenly Mother, or God once being a man, in front of a non-member, and heaven forbid on national TV.

This is so intertwined with what it is to be a Mormon, it is difficult to separate them.

And so, when President Hinckley was asked this question in the media, his natural reaction was to do what any good Mormon would do--fudge the answer. Note he didn't outright deny it. That is what I would have considered a "lie." Instead, he tried to defuse it by admitting that something like it had been taught once in the dim, dark past, but that we don't really know much about it and don't really teach it in church.

I don't know if this makes sense to you, Madeleine, but I guarantee it will resonate with most folks who are or have been Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Look to the New Testament, where St. Paul talks about Christians being slaughtered like sheep. Certainly those being killed could have hidden what they believe, denied it and lived, but they did not. As St. Paul taught, there is nothing to fear in following Jesus Christ.

I agree with you that the natural reaction is to deny, just as Peter did, and as Jesus prophesied he would. Peter mourned for his weakness, he didn't teach it as something everyone should do.

The lesson in this is to pick up your cross and follow Him. Certainly it is difficult to put off the natural man, to die to oneself. But one claiming to be a prophet should at least try to be the example for this, and not put his followers in a position of rationalizing for him.

[_Nightlion]

For some reason, I have a hard time thinking that anything that involves Eve's first ovulation being removed and then implanted into the Virgin Mary is not making "better sense of the Restoration."

How so? The scripture says after Eve's conceptions were multiplied unto here, meaning that her spent ovaries* were recharged, then stated that God would put enmity between Satan and the seed of the woman......referencing Christ who would have power to bruise, or crush the serpent's head as Satan would have power to bruise Christ's heel.

This ties Jesus Christ's birth to the seed of Eve. And Christ has preeminence in all things so he would be counted the first conceived at least if not the first born.

How would science today impregnate a virgin? They would place a cloned ovum into the virgin. In this way Mary did not contribute to the DNA of Christ who was in the express image of the Father. That is what a clone looks like. It is the same DNA.

Further it might interest you to realize that Christ will not keep this cloned body. He took it up again but not a perfect body as the scars of his crucifixion were still showing. It will be discarded when all things become new and Christ sits upon the very throne of power where he was before as he testified unto the Jews in John 6. The Eternal Father who now sits upon the throne will become the next Holy Ghost as he was the Holy Father and then becomes the Holy Ghost. All three of them tread in the tracks of each other on an eternal round of a course. So says scripture. I just help you understand them.

*They were spent after all the hosts were finished, spiritually, when Adam and Eve obeyed the commandment to be fruitful and multiply after they were given a world before they were placed into the Garden of Eden. Read your scriptures for the first time.

[_Runtu]

How so? The scripture says after Eve's conceptions were multiplied unto here, meaning that her spent ovaries* were recharged, then stated that God would put enmity between Satan and the seed of the woman......referencing Christ who would have power to bruise, or crush the serpent's head as Satan would have power to bruise Christ's heel.

This ties Jesus Christ's birth to the seed of Eve. And Christ has preeminence in all things so he would be counted the first conceived at least if not the first born.

How would science today impregnate a virgin? They would place a cloned ovum into the virgin. In this way Mary did not contribute to the DNA of Christ who was in the express image of the Father. That is what a clone looks like. It is the same DNA.

Further it might interest you to realize that Christ will not keep this cloned body. He took it up again but not a perfect body as the scars of his crucifixion were still showing. It will be discarded when all things become new and Christ sits upon the very throne of power where he was before as he testified unto the Jews in John 6. The Eternal Father who now sits upon the throne will become the next Holy Ghost as he was the Holy Father and then becomes the Holy Ghost. All three of them tread in the tracks of each other on an eternal round of a course. So says scripture. I just help you understand them.

*They were spent after all the hosts were finished, spiritually, when Adam and Eve obeyed the commandment to be fruitful and multiply after they were given a world before they were placed into the Garden of Eden. Read your scriptures for the first time.

QED

[_Nightlion]

QED

Huh?

[_madeleine]

Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, not with the seed of something or someone.

Though, traditional Christians give the title of the New Eve to Mary. But not for reasons that she was carrying the ovaries or eggs of Eve. (That is just really not rational, at all.)