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

[Publisher]

Most statements on that issue that I have read are not “Mormons believe Adam was God”, but instead are “Mormons were once taught that Adam was God, and that belief has been dropped”, or, “Brigham Young once taught, from the pulpit, that Adam was God”. It is quite clear that Mormons today do not believe that Adam is God.

We have read different statements on the subject then…as related by you, that is the truth…what I have read…is not.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Friend…“nice try” for…what? I made no “attempt” of anything other than state I do not believe dishonesty concerning what people believe to be living in Truth. If it is within the Catholic tradition to state falsehoods concerning what others believe as it assists with apoligetics…then I am not as well versed about Catholic thought and morals as I beleived I was…I do not believe stating falsehoods about others is a Catholic belief…but merely an oddity of some Catholics…and in this they certainly share with Protestants.

“Nice try”…??? Nice try for what?

For ignoring the quotes of their prophets. You know, the guys who talk to God? You seem to mhave a huge disconnect reading the quotes then saying they don;t believe it. They may run from it…but when their prophet speaks, they are supposed to listen.

And I have posted no lies. I have quoted THEIR leaders and THEIR doctrinal books. If anyoine is living a lie, it is them.

 

[Publisher]

For ignoring the quotes of their prophets. You know, the guys who talk to God? You seem to mhave a huge disconnect reading the quotes then saying they don;t believe it. They may run from it…but when their prophet speaks, they are supposed to listen.

And I have posted no lies. I have quoted THEIR leaders and THEIR doctrinal books. If anyoine is living a lie, it is them.

So by quoting their prophets and leaders you claim that those quotes are “officially recognized teachings” of the LDS church…they really believe it…even though they say they don’t?

If the official stance of the LDS church is that the statements of these prophets ARE NOT official teachings of the church…they are lying and you are telling the truth?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Catholic20064]

So by quoting their prophets and leaders you claim that those quotes are “officially recognized teachings” of the LDS church…they really believe it…even though they say they don’t?

If the official stance of the LDS church is that the statements of these prophets ARE NOT official teachings of the church…they are lying and you are telling the truth?

Is that what you are saying?

I find that most active Mormons believe the doctrine that God the Father had a Father and that He is an exalted man. The reason they believe that is it has been taught in their church Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society manuals for years. There are some who claim not to believe it because it isn’t in the scriptures, but they are a minority. The LDS Church has never formally denied any of the teachings of Joseph Smith regarding these matters, and I don’t expect them to do so. They may have quit talking as much about these doctrines because they don’t want them to be used against them by non-Mormon Christians. That doesn’t mean they don’t regard those teachings as doctrine that is worthy of belief.

 

[Publisher]

I find that most active Mormons believe the doctrine that God the Father had a Father and that He is an exalted man. The reason they believe that is it has been taught in their church Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society manuals for years. There are some who claim not to believe it because it isn’t in the scriptures, but they are a minority. The LDS Church has never formally denied any of the teachings of Joseph Smith regarding these matters, and I don’t expect them to do so. They may have quit talking as much about these doctrines because they don’t want them to be used against them by non-Mormon Christians. That doesn’t mean they don’t regard those teachings as doctrine that is worthy of belief.

Regardless of what they say publically…you believe they are lying? Just trying to get a feel of what the consensus among the Catholics and Protestants on this board think…trying to wrap my head around it I guess.

When the LDS officially says one thing…do you and others actually believe they are lying?

 

[LongJourney]

I usually avoid the issue entirely, when I refer to the “teachings of the LDS church.” They have no consistent set of doctrines, and many admit it. I think that is the reason why so many end up UU. It is also a non-doctrinal “church.”

 

[Catholic20064]

Regardless of what they say publically…you believe they are lying? Just trying to get a feel of what the consensus among the Catholics and Protestants on this board think…trying to wrap my head around it I guess.

When the LDS officially says one thing…do you and others actually believe they are lying?

The LDS Church isn’t lying. I think if you were to ask some of their leaders directly they would say they believe these things. They are just not emphasizing these teachings as much as they did 30 years ago. I do believe there are some members who don’t speak officially for the LDS Church that are trying to cover up these things.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Regardless of what they say publically…you believe they are lying? Just trying to get a feel of what the consensus among the Catholics and Protestants on this board think…trying to wrap my head around it I guess.

When the LDS officially says one thing…do you and others actually believe they are lying?

There is a difference between LDS doctrine and LDS belief. LDS can believe a wide range of things that are not doctrinal. The only caveat is they can’t teach what is not doctrinal, and their practices must adhere to a norm of behavior.

For example, a LDS member can say very honestly that their church teaches that Brigham Young’s doctrine of Adam-is-God was Young’s opinion. While simultaneously holding a belief in that doctrine/opinion.

What I see are people who carefully choose what time and place to express the beliefs they have, compared to expressing what is doctrinal. Here, in a non-LDS forum, beliefs that are viewed by Catholics, and most Christians, as unbelievably heretical, will be toned down. Denied as being believed. Yet, you can got to a LDS Sunday school and be taught the very things that are being denied.

What I do see as dishonest is when LDS attempt to whitewash teachings that were taught as doctrinal, as never being doctrinal. Though, most LDS don’t know their own history.

Then you have people like Todd, who haven’t been exposed to the wide beliefs that Mormons hold, as they aren’t taught to people considering conversion. Potential converts are taught the basic doctrines of Mormonism, which on the surface don’t appear to be too much different than Christian doctrines.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Regardless of what they say publically…you believe they are lying? Just trying to get a feel of what the consensus among the Catholics and Protestants on this board think…trying to wrap my head around it I guess.

When the LDS officially says one thing…do you and others actually believe they are lying?

If what they say publicly is different from what they say in private teaching, then yes they are lying, or not telling the whole truth, hence it is a lie.

My problem is in the consistency of what is being taught.
I have been taking the missionary discussions to learn more about LDS as my wife is LDS. I was taught in the investigators class that we can become gods. Missionaries have never brought this up. When the subject comes up on these boards, I was told that “some Mormons believe that.” That means some to do not.
So, I have to question what is actual doctrine if only “some” believe it. As has been stated, the Catholic teaching has not changed and will not change.

 

[Todd520]

The LDS Church isn’t lying. I think if you were to ask some of their leaders directly they would say they believe these things. They are just not emphasizing these teachings as much as they did 30 years ago. I do believe there are some members who don’t speak officially for the LDS Church that are trying to cover up these things.

This is my personal take

We have no definitive knowledge of the true nature of God and the afterlife, but there is value in having the concept in your mind, an image that you can identify with and pray to, a goal that has relevance and helps you follow the teachings of Christ. When thinking of the afterlife (unknowable by humans), we use our imaginations, and build off what we’ve read. My Catholic sister feels everyone will be together, at the foot of God’s throne. Other people imagine living in a mansion.

Different faiths have helped fill in the ‘unknowable’ blank canvas differently. But is it really important? Does it really matter how some story or teaching helped convert the unknowable into something personal and relevant, something that delivered right action in the here and now.

Considering that Jesus taught figuratively, in parables, I am hesitant to take any scriptural description of the unknowable as a literal description. Thus, I believe the JS and BY lectures on the unknowable are meant to be interprested in a figurative manner as opposed to a literal descripting of things unknowable. JS himself was very clear that humans really couldn’t grasp the nature of God, what was behind the veil.

A figurative approach allows me to appreciate the assumption of Mary, while a literal read raises all kinds of questions that can’t really be answered except by tearing away the fabric of your faith…

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I am new to this forum as many of the other forums are often filled with confusion and what I believe are called “Sock Puppets” on both sides and often the dabate gets nowhere.

Having in the past and recently served in a position of high teaching authority, but yet lacking any real credentials to serve in such a position I believe that nearly every member believes that they can attain Godhood. I was disapointed when hearing G.B. Hinkley back away from this teaching because this was something I grew up believing.

I believe the “King Follett Discourse” delieverd by Joseph Smith was not meant to give those a more figurative view of God but to give the members what Joseph Smith actually believed. He mentions it is “That great secret” which nobody really knows about.

I recently attended a Mormon funeral and was asked by a close relative who was preparing a funeral talk if I knew any LDS scripture references that he could use in regards to becoming a God. I told him that I did not belive there was any canonized scripture that said anything about that. I believe he was shocked for me to say that, and shocked that in his efforts to find it, it was not there.

I am by no means a Mormon scholar which others here might be, but what I try to be is honest, both in my search for wisdom and in what I tell my fellow man.

 

[Todd520]

I believe the “King Follett Discourse” delieverd by Joseph Smith was not meant to give those a more figurative view of God but to give the members what Joseph Smith actually believed. He mentions it is “That great secret” which nobody really knows about.
.

Read it again, and notice how Joseph Smith states it is almost impossible for your average man to understand the character of God, that it takes a very special connection with the Holy Spirit to begin to understand God.

Then Joseph gives a description that even the uneducated farm boy can identify with, take to their heart, and pray to. Joseph’s description enabled “I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him.”

 

[Returning_Home]

The LDS Church believes Jesus was perfect and free of sin during his time on earth.
The LDS Church does not teach that any member of the Godhead (Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) has ever sinned.

JS said
No sane person sees JS argue that our heavenly Father ever sinned in this statement. Also, since Jesus never sinned, why would anyone conclude that the Father sinned?

Where is the clear statement stating the LDS believed either of them sinned?Same old, same old - STM must rely on misrepresentation to fabricate a “sinning God”

And this is clearly part of the redefinition of the nature of mankind; Mormonism portrays humans as basically good, whereas Christianity views them the way the Bible teaches: that we are selfish, cruel, sinful beings. That’s the reason we need a savior.

Since Mormonism has redefined the nature of mankind, the role of the savior also had to change so the Mormon jesus is sort of a sideshow barker, hawking exaltation.

This can also bleed into the fact that the Mormon jesus is a product of incest, which I’ve covered elsewhere.

 

[Todd520]

And this is clearly part of the redefinition of the nature of mankind; Mormonism portrays humans as basically good, whereas Christianity views them the way the Bible teaches: that we are selfish, cruel, sinful beings. That’s the reason we need a savior.

Since Mormonism has redefined the nature of mankind, the role of the savior also had to change so the Mormon jesus is sort of a sideshow barker, hawking exaltation.

This can also bleed into the fact that the Mormon jesus is a product of incest, which I’ve covered elsewhere.

Guess it’s time to also add you to my ignore list.
It’s clear you can’t learn from what is posted, unless it helps your slander efforts.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Read it again, and notice how Joseph Smith states it is almost impossible for your average man to understand the character of God, that it takes a very special connection with the Holy Spirit to begin to understand God.

Then Joseph gives a description that even the uneducated farm boy can identify with, take to their heart, and pray to. Joseph’s description enabled “I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him.”

When Joseph states that it is almost impossible for your average man to understand, do you think that what he is saying is that it is more complicated than what he can explain, or that your average man being a protestant, quaker, etc just will not be able to comprehend such a thing?

I am assuming that you are an active LDS member such as I. While I have not been taught how many steps and what the processes may be to become a God, I have always been taught that I can aspire to be one. Whether it be a junior God or a supreme God, I have no idea. I have been taught many times as a young priesthood holder, in Gospel Doctrine classes and in Stake Conferences by visiting General Authorities that God is an exhalted man.

I personally can not fathom ever becoming a God, not because of personal sin or belief but because if it were even possible I don’t believe that such a far reaching goal is applicable in my attempts to become a better person. I would love for the church to republish an updated Mormon Doctrine book outlining what is truth and what is fiction and have each and every LDS leader declare that this is the doctrine of the church.

When the Book of Mormon was published it was claimed to be the definitive source of the true and everlasting gospel. But a book of commandments and later the Doctrine and Covenants was created to fill in the many wide gaps of how the one true church should be set up. But where in the canonized scriptures can I point my young son and say “Here, this is where the Prophet through God has declared that twelve year old’s get the Aaronic Priesthood.”

While LDS apologist try and answer questions such as where the real Hill Cummorah is or why did the Egyptian scrolls contain Egyptian funerary text, many of us would like some of the most basic beliefs outlined and canonized so we as members can know definitively what is doctrine and what we should believe in.

I am not here looking for a fight, looking to debate, but to seek wisdom in all things. It just so happens that some of the LDS forums are becoming shouting matches, and I turned to the Catholic forum in hopes that it’s not just a place for name-calling.

 

[Returning_Home]

Having in the past and recently served in a position of high teaching authority, but yet lacking any real credentials to serve in such a position I believe that nearly every member believes that they can attain Godhood. I was disapointed when hearing G.B. Hinkley back away from this teaching because this was something I grew up believing.

First, welcome to the site. I hope you are, indeed, what your username implies. You’re going to hear a lot of things that the church doesn’t want you to know, all of which we can support with documentation form LDS sources.

Second, regarding Hinckley, he was deceptive in his comments about exaltation and he outright lied on Larry King Live about polygamy. See this video: youtube.com/watch?v=9lsBFlcjE-8

In fact, the church has always lied about polygamy. While the church no longer practices it, the reason it keeps coming up is because this has never been accurately and adequately addressed by the church. If the prophet of the church lead by Jesus Christ Almighty doesn’t have to follow the rules, who does?

I believe the “King Follett Discourse” delieverd by Joseph Smith was not meant to give those a more figurative view of God but to give the members what Joseph Smith actually believed. He mentions it is “That great secret” which nobody really knows about.

What most Mormons don’t know is that when Smith wrote the BOM, he had one opinion of God, but as time passed, his opinion about God began to change and evolve. This is the reason that the god of the BOM is an eternal spirit whereas the god of modern Mormonism was once a man and has a body of flesh and bone. This is also the reason that the BOM is Trinitarian in concept but modern Mormonism holds that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are merely ‘one in purpose.’ These examples go on and on. This is the reason that the BOM has nothing to do with Mormonism at all.

I recently attended a Mormon funeral and was asked by a close relative who was preparing a funeral talk if I knew any LDS scripture references that he could use in regards to becoming a God. I told him that I did not belive there was any canonized scripture that said anything about that. I believe he was shocked for me to say that, and shocked that in his efforts to find it, it was not there.

What’s considered scripture by the LDS is fluid at best; there are no fixed reference points and no way to tell what speech of the then-current leader of the church is or is not scriptural. Did you know that the Journal of Discourses considers itself to be scripture? Indeed it does but how many references have you seen to anything in it? Probably not many if any at all. Why? Because it’s embarrassing and contradicts what the church currently teaches; thus the church has to assign most of Brigham Young’s words to his mere opinion.

But again, welcome and I hope you take something of value away from your time here.

 

[twopekinguys]

Someone needs to look up the meaning of the word “slander”.

I think they also need to find a new buzz word.

 

[Returning_Home]

So we’re discussing what some Mormon leaders speculated about…not what Mormons really believe? So why state “Mormons believe XYZ”…then go on and post indicating that what is being said is truly Mormon doctrine…when in fact it is not and never has been “official” teachings…but speculations of Mormon leaders?

You don’t see a problem with stating one thing concerning what Mormon’s believe…when in fact they do not believe it? This is not a problem with Truth?

I understand that some Mormon leaders had very strange beliefs…and said many strange things…but if what these leaders said IS NOT OFFICIAL Mormon teaching…why state that it is what Mormons believe? Doesn’t this flirt with out and out deceit?

Isn’t there “official” church teachings that Catholics have issue with they can focus on for discussion without stating veiled or out and out falsehoods concerning the LDS?

What you don’t underdstand about Mormonism is the fact that the church rarely takes a public position on anything. And the only way to find out what the church believes about God and Salvation is to read their teaching manuals.

What does the individual Mormon believe? That’s as varied, for example, as what Catholics believe. Most Catholics I’ve known, practicing, *believing *Catholics, have some problem with the church’s dogma so I personally don’t lump them all together, but rather show that so-and-so has been taught as fact as some point in time. If the church is what it claims to be, it stands to reason that at least a few people believed Brigham Young when he taught that Adam was God.

That all said, I don’t believe that any of us critics have made broad generalizations about LDS beliefs, but rather that doctrines A, B, and C were once taught. The fact that they were believed is simply natural for those who take the church’s word at face value.

 

[Todd520]

When Joseph states that it is almost impossible for your average man to understand, do you think that what he is saying is that it is more complicated than what he can explain, or that your average man being a protestant, quaker, etc just will not be able to comprehend such a thing?

IMHO, the avg protestant certainly isn’t challenged with understaning the words used by Joseph, so it’s more complicated than he can explain - that’s why he went figurative instead of literal

I am assuming that you are an active LDS member such as I. While I have not been taught how many steps and what the processes may be to become a God, I have always been taught that I can aspire to be one. Whether it be a junior God or a supreme God, I have no idea. I have been taught many times as a young priesthood holder, in Gospel Doctrine classes and in Stake Conferences by visiting General Authorities that God is an exhalted man.

The Catholic Catechism also clearly states that Man may become God, which is their way of saying they become one with Jesus and can share in his divine nature.

I personally can not fathom ever becoming a God, not because of personal sin or belief but because if it were even possible I don’t believe that such a far reaching goal is applicable in my attempts to become a better person. I would love for the church to republish an updated Mormon Doctrine book outlining what is truth and what is fiction and have each and every LDS leader declare that this is the doctrine of the church.

. . . many of us would like some of the most basic beliefs outlined and canonized so we as members can know definitively what is doctrine and what we should believe in.

Yes, it would be nice to have a Mormon Catechism that was explicit in stating beliefs. It’s not clear to me which scriptures are completely literal an which are figurative, and their official interpretation.

However, it’s not fair to call things fiction - Jesus taught with parables and stories that are truth, but not literal truth.

 

[lax16]

From light planet:
Heavenly Mother’s Nature Revealed
Spirits cannot be created from nothing in Mormon doctrine. Spirits, like physical children, require an interaction between a mother and father. Before any person can be born on Earth, their spiritual conception must take place in Heaven. Rather than a series of multiple lives through reincarnation, spirits wait their turn to be born into this world.

Does this mean what I think it does?

I am re-posting in the hopes an LDS poster will respond.
It ties in to this thread so I will not start a new one.