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

[ParkerD]

1. 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.

1. Do you deny that this passage teaches that god was like us?

3), and that in time we can be a god ourselves?

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

JHow,

1. I suppose that if you have read the quote entirely several times, and still don’t understand the context, that it’s not something I’m going to be able to alter in your mind. (I’ve had that happen occasionally years ago in school classes when a teacher would talk about finding the meaning in context and I just didn’t see the meaning they were thinking everyone should be able to see–so it happens.)
2. Of course I do–I already explained that. Just because a person has to read four paragraphs to get the context, does not alter that the context contains a totally different meaning than those few words.
3. If by “we” you mean “those who are willing to become completely sanctified, completely selfless, completely purified through repentance, completely willing to do the Father’s will at all times without question, completely full of love, completely covenant-keeping, completely willing to be changed into a new person through all the challenges of life and through all the learning that will occur in the spirit world, completely willing to have been married in an eternal marriage covenant”–then, “yes”, those people can gain the joint throne promised by Christ by revelation to John as recorded by him as now found in the book of Revelation.
4. Of course you realize that that occurred eons of time ago, before our present universe was “created” (organized). I don’t see why it would matter to someone what the “name” of that particular earth was. I don’t know that our earth has a “name”.?

 

[PaulDupre]

The underlined parts of Parker’s post were, I assume, an attempt to illustrate the widely-held LDS belief that God the Father was the Christ of another world. It is not official LDS doctrine, but it is often spoken about by LDS.

If the Father “laid down his life and took it up again” as Jesus did, then one could extrapolate from that the idea that the Father was a Christ like Jesus (though on another planet). Since Jesus said that he did not have his life taken from him, but laid it down of his own accord, then that extrapolation makes sense within the LDS paradigm. If God the Father was a Christ like Jesus when he was a man, then he would have been sinless like Jesus. I think that is what Parker was trying to get at.

If the LDS church would canonize this teaching, then it would serve to dismiss the idea, once and for all, that God the Father was a sinner when he was mortal.

Personally, I have never met a Mormon who indicated a belief that God the Father ever sinned. I sure didn’t think so when I wa LDS.

 

[ParkerD]

The underlined parts of Parker’s post were, I assume, an attempt to illustrate the widely-held LDS belief that God the Father was the Christ of another world. It is not official LDS doctrine, but it is often spoken about by LDS.

If the Father “laid down his life and took it up again” as Jesus did, then one could extrapolate from that the idea that the Father was a Christ like Jesus (though on another planet). Since Jesus said that he did not have his life taken from him, but laid it down of his own accord, then that extrapolation makes sense within the LDS paradigm. If God the Father was a Christ like Jesus when he was a man, then he would have been sinless like Jesus. I think that is what Parker was trying to get at.

If the LDS church would canonize this teaching, then it would serve to dismiss the idea, once and for all, that God the Father was a sinner when he was mortal.

Personally, I have never met a Mormon who indicated a belief that God the Father ever sinned. I sure didn’t think so when I was LDS.

Thanks, Paul, for this comment as a follow-up.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Parker, I have no problem with the fact that, had the Father wished to become incarnate, He would have been a perfect and sinless man. My problem is that I find nothing in Scripture to even hint at the possibility that He did. It seems to me that you make God in our image and misunderstand what being made in the “image of God” really means. You tend not to distinguish between the Creator and the created. We are finite creatures so God could never have been “as we are now”. He is always God, without beginning or end. He is not a creature who, at some point, became God. While He invites us to share in His life, which is divine life, we will always be creatures sharing in the divine and God will always be God. While Christ shared in our humanity, he never ceased being God. Scripture says nothing about the Father ever assuming human nature.

 

[JHow]

…Personally, I have never met a Mormon who indicated a belief that God the Father ever sinned. I sure didn’t think so when I wa LDS.

Fair enough, but then maybe you shouldn’t say things like “God was a man like we are now…” - I am very aware of my sinful state.

To parker’s point about sharing the throne of Christ in Revelation, I never took that to mean equality in anyway with Christ, which is what I am asking when I ask if your scriptures teaches that you (clearly ‘we’ didn’t work for you) will be a god one day.

 

[PaulDupre]

Fair enough, but then maybe you shouldn’t say things like “God was a man like we are now…” - I am very aware of my sinful state.

That’s true, and just one of many things Mormons say that seem to trivialize God. I got disgusted with the cavalier attitude most LDS have about God. They seem to think he is just some guy like us only more advanced.

To parker’s point about sharing the throne of Christ in Revelation, I never took that to mean equality in anyway with Christ, which is what I am asking when I ask if your scriptures teaches that you (clearly ‘we’ didn’t work for you) will be a god one day.

When I was LDS I tried to believe I would be a god one day, but could never get myself to really believe it. I was always accutely aware of the fundamental difference between creature and Creator. The only way anyone can believe he can become like God is to diminish Him, which Mormons do constantly and with ease.

 

[Returning_Home]

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.

This is the current stance of the church, but what Parker won’t tell you is that this goes completely against the BOM, which states over and over that god is an eternal, unchanging triune spirit. In only one place can I find any mention that God and Jesus are separate–and that was added in the second edition, published in 1837, when Smith’s opinions about God began to change and evolve.

The best he can do is to tell you that you don’t understand, which is exactly what he did.