As Todd Requested...LDS Teachings God was once a Man

[SirThomasMore]

Caprica, I hid all STM posts some time ago due to his constant posting of the truth Mormons cannot refute. I suggest you do the same.

(he also motivated me to change my signature to something that defines the LDS Church)

 

[Stephen168]

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

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!..

The problem with your original syllogism was that you attempted to posit that because Latter-day Saints believe that God was once a man, and was sinless, then man is not sinful.

No, I was attempting to posit that Mormons believe that God was once a man; just as man is. And how man ‘is’ is sinful, which you said Mormons also believe. So it is irrational for Mormons to also believe that God was sinless.

The parallel in Catholicism is that Catholics believe that God the Son became “fully man”, took on human nature, and was sinless, yet mankind is not sinless.

There is nothing parallel in Christianity.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks Stephen,
Maybe we have the crux of the definition problem here. **How do you describe the Flesh and Bone aspect of Jesus both before and after his resurection? **

God

The Flesh and Bone aspect of Jesus is what I believe the LDS refer to when they say God was once human.

I don’t think so.

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

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!..

 

[ParkerD]

It seems to me BY is **very clear **on how Jesus was conceived! And no one can say that he wasn’t a prophet at the time he was speaking…or is that coming next?

Lax16,
BY’s main point was that Jesus was the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. That was in the statement you cited, final paragraph.

Anything else that Brigham Young said at any time that has not been voted on and accepted as scripture or was not voted on by the entire Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency and unanimously approved, is not doctrinal if it does not directly correspond with teachings found in the LDS-accepted standard works. I feel not the slightest obligation to accept what he said as doctrinally correct on every subject that came to his mind to talk about.

What’s more important to me as a person with a relationship with God that includes receiving personal guidance and “revelation” meaning the Holy Ghost confirms truth, is that if I have a question I can pray about it and get an answer that satisfies me. This is one of those cases. (Actually, the prayer has been “in my heart” and not “on my lips” because I didn’t need to ask out loud because I already am familiar with the teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon on the subject and there is no uncertainty about those teachings.)

 

[Returning_Home]

BY’s main point was that Jesus was the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. That was in the statement you cited, final paragraph.

Well, that depends on which version of the BOM you accept as fact because Jesus wasn’t always separate and distinct from God in Mormonism:

“These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that
the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior.” (BOM, 1830, p.32)

“These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the *Son of the *Eternal Father and the Savior.” (BOM, 1 Nephi 14:30)

Can anyone explain how the god of Mormonism doesn’t seem to understand his own nature and relationship to the Mormon jesus?

Anything else that Brigham Young said at any time that has not been voted on and accepted as scripture or was not voted on by the entire Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency and unanimously approved, is not doctrinal if it does not directly correspond with teachings found in the LDS-accepted standard works. I feel not the slightest obligation to accept what he said as doctrinally correct on every subject that came to his mind to talk about.

And this is, of course, where the LDS has nothing to do with the Bible unless I somehow missed where Jesus had what he said voted on by the apostles.

As we all know, what you consider the standard works has nothing to do with what the church accepts as truth because scripture is regularly found outside of those four books, up to and including what the prophets say, unless you don’t like what he says, in which case, it’s not scripture.

What’s more important to me as a person with a relationship with God that includes receiving personal guidance and “revelation” meaning the Holy Ghost confirms truth, is that if I have a question I can pray about it and get an answer that satisfies me. This is one of those cases. (Actually, the prayer has been “in my heart” and not “on my lips” because I didn’t need to ask out loud because I already am familiar with the teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon on the subject and there is no uncertainty about those teachings.)

The heart, above all things, is deceitful, which explains the reason you accept tripe as fact.

 

[Todd520]

No, I was attempting to posit that Mormons believe that God was once a man; just as man is. And how man ‘is’ is sinful, which you said Mormons also believe. So it is irrational for Mormons to also believe that God was sinless.

There is nothing parallel in Christianity.

Stephen,

• Jesus was fully human, POINT 1
• “Man might become God” (catechism 460) so catholic souls will fully share in Christs divine nature POINT 2

 

[Stephen168]

To Summarize:

A. Cahtolics believe God(Jesus) was once a man (a=b)

Thanks Stephen

Stephen,

• Jesus was fully human, POINT 1

Yes, That is what Mormon leaders teach. Catholics do not believe Jesus was a man as “man is” like Mormon leaders do.

• “Man might become God” (catechism 460) so catholic souls will fully share in Christs divine nature POINT 2

As I said in my post #140: “……… I usually receive a similar response that you give; which is say the Catholic Church does or believes the same thing and the example giving is not what the Catholic Church does or believes.” I call it the ‘Mormon tu quoque – strawman response’ and as you can see since my #140 it is used most of the time by Mormons.

Mormons believe that God was once a man; just as man is. And how man ‘is’ is sinful, which Mormons also believe. So it is irrational for Mormons to also believe that God was sinless as a man.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
BY’s main point was that Jesus was the Son of God the Father, and not the Son of the Holy Ghost. That was in the statement you cited, final paragraph.

Anything else that Brigham Young said at any time that has not been voted on and accepted as scripture or was not voted on by the entire Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency and unanimously approved, is not doctrinal if it does not directly correspond with teachings found in the LDS-accepted standard works. I feel not the slightest obligation to accept what he said as doctrinally correct on every subject that came to his mind to talk about.

Hi Parker - When did the Mormon church decide that it needed to have a vote to accept a prophet’s teachings as scripture?

If God is speaking through a prophet, why is a vote of others needed to authenticate his message?

Can you provide examples of this in the Bible?

Why did BY need to make the point that Jesus was the Son of God and not the Holy Spirit? Can you please provide proof that this was a question that the first LDS needed clarified?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker -

1. When did the Mormon church decide that it needed to have a vote to accept a prophet’s teachings as scripture?
2. If God is speaking through a prophet, why is a vote of others needed to authenticate his message?
3. Can you provide examples of this in the Bible?
4. Why did BY need to make the point that Jesus was the Son of God and not the Holy Spirit?
5. Can you please provide proof that this was a question that the first LDS needed clarified?

Hi, Lax16,
Fantastic weather, right?

1. This common consent voting process was begun by revelation to Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon didn’t need to be voted on because it was a translation of ancient writings by the gift and power of God (the spirit of revelation) and was completed before the LDS church was organized as a church organization; but scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants needed the voting approval of the Quorum of Twelve and the entire church membership to be officially “canonized”, once the church was organized.
2. A called prophet generally receives divine guidance through prayer, just like all of us do. His responsibility covers more than himself and his family, but the idea is the same: think, pray, listen, get answers, teach, listen to others (receive feedback), pray some more, ask questions, listen, get answers, think, pray some more.

It is not a kind of case where his brain or his mouth is made into the “mouthpiece” of God without framing the resulting “message” through the prism of that particular person’s perspective. A prophet usually had some particular “special reason” they are called as a prophet for a particular time and place, bringing their unique gifts and talents to that particular time and place, but an expectation that that means they become an authority on everything under the sun is completely wrong.

As to voting on the “message”, the only reason that is required is if the message is to be considered as being unique to the extent of it being needed to be added to the official scriptures accepted by the membership of the church. Then a membership vote would be taken on the “new scripture”. (This happened during my lifetime on several items of new scripture–last in 1978).

1. The best single example is when Peter had the council meeting with the other apostles over the question of circumcision of Gentiles (you’re familiar with the case) in Acts 15, and verse 22 includes the words “with the whole church” which suggests that there was a known outcome of a united approval of the decision, and the sending out of the message and solidifying of the doctrine about no circumcision of Gentile converts.
2. Because probably 99% of the converts at that time were from Protestant backgrounds, and the translation in KJV Matthew 1:20 leads to a question in people’s minds as to what the words in that verse mean, exactly. It was important enough to clarify that in his sermons.
3. I don’t know that I can–never researched that kind of question. It’s very obvious to me why such a thing would logically come up in a talk, since I had the same question myself when I first read Matthew 1:20 as a young child, but the correct answer was more clear in Luke 1:35.

 

[Todd520]

Mormons believe that God was once a man; just as man is. And how man ‘is’ is sinful, which Mormons also believe. So it is irrational for Mormons to also believe that God was sinless as a man.

Stephen,
I’ll try this one last time,
Mormons do believe that Jesus/God was once flesh and bone, just as man,
Mormons do believe that man is sinful
Mormons DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus/God was sinful (having flesh and bone has no impact on his divine nature).

Since sin is a moral evil, and evil implies a deficiency in perfection, it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good. Thus, “man is sinful” cannot apply to God. However, your logic for LDS clearly contradicts and assumes all traits of man are traits of God just because God/JESUS had flesh and bone?

I find the above really strange since I believe Catholics follow the same logic but you allow a different conclusion, for Catholics?

Catholics believe that Jesus was flesh and bone, just as man
Catholics believe that man is sinful (all born with original sin excluding Mary and Jesus)
Catholics DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was sinful,

If you don’t see the parallels, I’ll just add you to my ignore list since you repeatedly refuse to believe what we tell you, and come to your self-serving conclusions.

 

[SteveVH]

1. The best single example is when Peter had the council meeting with the other apostles over the question of circumcision of Gentiles (you’re familiar with the case) in Acts 15, and verse 22 includes the words “with the whole church” which suggests that there was a known outcome of a united approval of the decision, and the sending out of the message and solidifying of the doctrine about no circumcision of Gentile converts.

Actually, the Council of Jerusalem is not a real good example for you. While there was “no little dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2), after Peter had spoken, “The whole assembly fell silent…” (Acts 15:12). The issue had been settled. In light of that, James gave a recommendation on how to respond to the Gentiles. Then, "…the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch. The whole church was not voting on the decision as to whether or not to require circumcision. Peter had received a revelation from God concerning the gentiles and after stating his position the assembly fell silent. The only the thing the “whole church” was involved in deciding was to send representatives.

 

[ParkerD]

Actually, the Council of Jerusalem is not a real good example for you. While there was “no little dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2), after Peter had spoken, “The whole assembly fell silent…” (Acts 15:12). The issue had been settled. In light of that, James gave a recommendation on how to respond to the Gentiles. Then, "…the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch. The whole church was not voting on the decision as to whether or not to require circumcision. Peter had received a revelation from God concerning the gentiles and after stating his position the assembly fell silent. The only the thing the “whole church” was involved in deciding was to send representatives.

Hi, SteveVH,
Interesting difference in the translation as rendered in the KJV: “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

That makes sense to me that the multitude were interested in the experiences and what Barnabas and Paul had to say.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen,
I’ll try this one last time,
Mormons do believe that Jesus/God was once flesh and bone, just as man,
Mormons do believe that man is sinful
Mormons DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus/God was sinful (having flesh and bone has no impact on his divine nature).

Since sin is a moral evil, and evil implies a deficiency in perfection, it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good. Thus, “man is sinful” cannot apply to God. However, your logic for LDS clearly contradicts and assumes all traits of man are traits of God just because God/JESUS had flesh and bone?

I find the above really strange since I believe Catholics follow the same logic but you allow a different conclusion, for Catholics?

Catholics believe that Jesus was flesh and bone, just as man
Catholics believe that man is sinful (all born with original sin excluding Mary and Jesus)
Catholics DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was sinful,

If you don’t see the parallels, I’ll just add you to my ignore list since you repeatedly refuse to believe what we tell you, and come to your self-serving conclusions.

I don’t know why you have this need to white wash Mormon doctrine, but it is extremely dishonest.

The difference is, Catholics understand God became man. God does not and cannot sin.

Mormons have it backwards and think man became God. Man can and does sin.

You keep switching between beliefs and trying to blend them together. Comparing the Catholic understanding of God to a the Mormon idea of Jesus. Which only shows how Mormons must split God in order to speak in Christian terms. It is an approach that fails.

 

[ParkerD]

To those interested:

Here is the direct quote as transcribed from the King Follett funeral sermon, showing clearly that what Joseph Smith was saying about God the Father being a resurrected Man has to do with Jesus having said He had the power to do “what His Father did”. Jesus was before, then (when He said the words recorded in the New Testament) and remained forever perfect. Thus, to say Jesus had the power to do “what His Father did” is to say that His Father was also perfect, just like Jesus, while on an earth as a Man who had power within Himself to become resurrected.

Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844:

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ
I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say?...The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power— to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
I’ll try this one last time,
Mormons do believe that Jesus/God was once flesh and bone, just as man,
Mormons do believe that man is sinful
Mormons DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus/God was sinful (having flesh and bone has no impact on his divine nature).

The first three posts of this thread are full of quotes from Mormon leaders which teach that God the father was once a man as we are now. He walked an earth just like man does. And man, if they are good enough, can become just like God is now. Flesh became God. If God was a man like man is now, by reason, he was sinful as man is now. It is irrational to think otherwise.

Since sin is a moral evil, and evil implies a deficiency in perfection, it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good. Thus, “man is sinful” cannot apply to God. However, your logic for LDS clearly contradicts and assumes all traits of man are traits of God just because God/JESUS had flesh and bone?

Flesh became God. You are talking about God the father as he is now, not when he was a man as we are now. As flesh he was sinful; I accept your belief that as God he is not sinful.

I find the above really strange since I believe Catholics follow the same logic but you allow a different conclusion, for Catholics?

There is only one logic. Things are logical or they are not. To believe man is sinful; God was a man as we are now but then believe he never sinned as a man is not logical.

Catholics believe that Jesus was flesh and bone, just as man
Catholics believe that man is sinful (all born with original sin excluding Mary and Jesus)
Catholics DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was sinful,

Catholics do not believe God the father was ever a man. He could not walk on an earth because there was no earth(s) until he made it; he is the creator of everything. He always was and always will be. God is love; he can not sin. Man is sinful; man is not God and never will be. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God……And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.” God became flesh and he was God. God is love and God can not sin.

If you don’t see the parallels, I’ll just add you to my ignore list since you repeatedly refuse to believe what we tell you, and come to your self-serving conclusions.

Railroad tracks run parallel, but they are trains running in opposite directions. Catholics believe God became flesh. Mormons believe flesh becomes Gods, and there doesn’t seem to be an explanation where the flesh originally came from.

I believe what you tell me, I am just pointing out that what you believe is irrational. I will say that you would not be the first who wants to believe something so badly that you must ignore reason. The Catholic Church has faith and reason; the Mormon Church only faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi, SteveVH,
Interesting difference in the translation as rendered in the KJV: “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

That makes sense to me that the multitude were interested in the experiences and what Barnabas and Paul had to say.

The fact that the assembly was interested in hearing “…what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” had nothing to do with voting on the matter. The assembly fell silent after Peter spoke. The debate had ended. Then they listened to Paul and Barnabas who were in agreement with Peter’s decision concerning the gentiles.

 

[JHow]

Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844:

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say?...The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power— to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

And why would I be wrong to conclude from this that Smith is teaching that God the Father was once a man like me, and that eventually I can do what Jesus did and be a god myself? A god that “came to be god” is certainly not the same thing as God, creator of time and space, existing before anything else existed, including the notion of “before”.

 

[ParkerD]

And why would I be wrong to conclude from this that Smith is teaching that God the Father was once a man like me, and that eventually I can do what Jesus did and be a god myself? A god that “came to be god” is certainly not the same thing as God, creator of time and space, existing before anything else existed, including the notion of “before”.

JHow,

Joseph Smith did say “man like us”, but if you read the entire quote you will see the important context–that the Father had power in Himself to “lay down His body and take it up again” (meaning resurrect Himself).

That power means He had both the knowledge to do that and the perfectly perfect body and mind, unstained by any impurity or any act of imperfection, to do that. Someone should know this who studies about the resurrection. The Savior could resurrect Himself because He had both the power and the knowledge and the perfect body and mind to be able to do that. The Father also.

The distinction between mankind and the Father and the Son ought to be apparent to anyone who reads the entire quote and has some inkling about what the resurrection means, and how it can possibly be accomplished. If a thoughtful reader puts that into the context of what Christ did for us in overcoming the sting of death, they can in turn appreciate Him, His suffering, His love, and His willingness to come to earth as Immanuel and make possible the resurrection of all of humankind.

I have never heard of anyone who thinks they have the power and knowledge to resurrect themselves, on their own. (More logically, I would think anyone would say “of course not.”)

But Jesus did say to follow Him, and John did write that the faithful will “be like Him” and be purified “even as He is pure.” That puts someone into the category of having power in the universe because of their purity and their unity with the Father and the Son and their divine will, but only through repentance, the grace of the Savior, and complete sanctification.

It means the elements “listen” to such a person because such a resurrected person will then be acting in perfect faith, perfect love, perfect knowledge, perfect unselfishness, and perfect desires that righteousness (including allowance for free will and choice) be brought about on earth and in heaven.

 

[Returning_Home]

Caprica, I hid all STM posts some time ago due to his disingenuous posting. I suggest you do the same.

he also motivated me to change my signature:

“I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person’s
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people’s religions, he is in a bad condition.”
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).

Unfortunately, your own faith brought this battle upon itself and threw down the gauntlet, which we have picked up. And now you don’t want to prove that you’re right, only that you’re “Christians.” Unfortunately, your leaders have already laid the groundwork which, like most things the church was founded on, has been largely abandoned. But we still have their words, baiting us to prove them wrong:

“…convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God…” (the Seer, Orson Pratt, Jan 1853, p 15)

“I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to yu. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-Day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test.” (Brigham Young, JOD 16:46, May 1873)

“If Joseph Smith was a deceiver,…then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false…If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear meny errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.” (Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, Doctrines of Salvation 1:188)

“I never told you I was perfect but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p 368)

“Why do not my enemies strike a blow at the doctrine? They cannot do it: it is truth, and I defy all men to upset it.” (HOTC 6:273, Mach 1844)

“Search these commandments for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are n them shall all be fulfilled.” (D&C 1:37)

 

[JHow]

JHow,

Joseph Smith did say “man like us”, but if you read the entire quote you will see the important context–that the Father had power in Himself to “lay down His body and take it up again” (meaning resurrect Himself).

That power means He had both the knowledge to do that and the perfectly perfect body and mind, unstained by any impurity or any act of imperfection, to do that. Someone should know this who studies about the resurrection. The Savior could resurrect Himself because He had both the power and the knowledge and the perfect body and mind to be able to do that. The Father also.

The distinction between mankind and the Father and the Son ought to be apparent to anyone who reads the entire quote and has some inkling about what the resurrection means, and how it can possibly be accomplished. If a thoughtful reader puts that into the context of what Christ did for us in overcoming the sting of death, they can in turn appreciate Him, His suffering, His love, and His willingness to come to earth as Immanuel and make possible the resurrection of all of humankind.

I have never heard of anyone who thinks they have the power and knowledge to resurrect themselves, on their own. (More logically, I would think anyone would say “of course not.”)

But Jesus did say to follow Him, and John did write that the faithful will “be like Him” and be purified “even as He is pure.” That puts someone into the category of having power in the universe because of their purity and their unity with the Father and the Son and their divine will, but only through repentance, the grace of the Savior, and complete sanctification.

It means the elements “listen” to such a person because such a resurrected person will then be acting in perfect faith, perfect love, perfect knowledge, perfect unselfishness, and perfect desires that righteousness (including allowance for free will and choice) be brought about on earth and in heaven.

Sorry, but the plain reading of the text defies this explanation:

It starts with “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…”, continues with “…, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves…”, keeps on to “…He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth…”

A full three paragraphs from where we started does the text bring up the power to resurrection, from which you intuit resurrection power means he was sinless. How easy it would have been to have written: “God was a man like you in every respect except for being sinless”, if that was the point to be made.

The further point of contention here is this one: “…the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God…”

God did not “come to be” Himself, he always is Himself, outside of and before time. We says things like “is, was and will be” for God because we are trying to describe His eternal nature in our limited human language - we are in time, God is not.

Any way you slice it, your own texts are proclaiming something radically different from historic Christianity. Do you deny that this passge teaches that god was like us, and that in time we can be a god oursleves?

By the way, if god dwelt on an earth (not the Earth), which one was it?