Quote from LDS about Eternal Progression

  • Thread starter Thread starter tkdnick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tkdnick

Guest
I asked my LDS friend what exactly eternal progression meant, and here is her response:

“…my eternal goal would be for myself to become like my Father, which would mean I would become a God. Actually, [my husband] would become a God and I would become a Goddess. If we were to obtain the highest Degree of Glory, that would mean we would be exhalted and live with our Father in Heaven. Becoming a God is part of that eternal progression that we talked about.”

This is so completely devastating to me that I can’t even respond to her. It just absolutely breaks my heart.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
I asked my LDS friend what exactly eternal progression meant, and here is her response:

“…my eternal goal would be for myself to become like my Father, which would mean I would become a God. Actually, [my husband] would become a God and I would become a Goddess. If we were to obtain the highest Degree of Glory, that would mean we would be exhalted and live with our Father in Heaven. Becoming a God is part of that eternal progression that we talked about.”

This is so completely devastating to me that I can’t even respond to her. It just absolutely breaks my heart.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s disturbing also. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of who God actually is, and what we really are, and you can’t get any more basic than that when discussing religion. Mormons claim that God wants us to become like Him because we are His children, and why wouldn’t He want us to have everything He has? The simple answer is this–because He is creator and we are created. God the Father is an uncreated being. He did not become God through some process of eternal progression. He has no equal. He has no wife. He simply is who He has always been and always will be. The divinity within us is the divine life he imparted in our souls in order for us to eternally live with him as adopted sons and daughters. But that does not, nor ever will, make us gods or godesses. As sons and daughters of God, we will always be His creatures, eternally living with Him and worshipping Him. To desire “more” than this is a failure to see the difference between the Creator and the created.
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
Yes, it’s disturbing also. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of who God actually is, and what we really are, and you can’t get any more basic than that when discussing religion. Mormons claim that God wants us to become like Him because we are His children, and why wouldn’t He want us to have everything He has? The simple answer is this–because He is creator and we are created. God the Father is an uncreated being. He did not become God through some process of eternal progression. He has no equal. He has no wife. He simply is who He has always been and always will be. The divinity within us is the divine life he imparted in our souls in order for us to eternally live with him as adopted sons and daughters. But that does not, nor ever will, make us gods or godesses. As sons and daughters of God, we will always be His creatures, eternally living with Him and worshipping Him. To desire “more” than this is a failure to see the difference between the Creator and the created.
Click to expand...
I went to the Catholic Answers Web site to learn more about the Mormon Church, and what I learned is down right scary. Besides the fact that Mormonism is strictly a “Made in America” religion, te Mormons believe that God selected Christ’s plan of salvation (where humans would eventually become gods of their own) over Lucifer’s plan (Lucifer was so incensed he led a rebellion and was cast from Heaven), that God came down from Heaven and had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus (who has not existed for all eternity), and a plurality of gods each ruling their own creations. Mormons believe our God was created by another god. It is all so sick and twisted.
 
40.png
jim1130:
I went to the Catholic Answers Web site to learn more about the Mormon Church, and what I learned is down right scary. Besides the fact that Mormonism is strictly a “Made in America” religion, te Mormons believe that God selected Christ’s plan of salvation (where humans would eventually become gods of their own) over Lucifer’s plan (Lucifer was so incensed he led a rebellion and was cast from Heaven), that God came down from Heaven and had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus (who has not existed for all eternity), and a plurality of gods each ruling their own creations. Mormons believe our God was created by another god. It is all so sick and twisted.
Click to expand...
Much of what you’ve posted is not what the LDS Church currently teaches. If this is on the CA website they need to correct it. It’s imperative that we truly understand the nature of their doctrine so that we don’t attack their church for something it doesn’t even teach.
 
hold on now Todd, Those are all things that were taught by supposed revelation through “prophets”. While they may not be “emphasized” any more or even taught in most sunday school classes they haven’t been renounced and are thus still LDS belief.
 
That’s true, Majick, but I’d caution anyone against using that information in debate with LDS. At least, for example, find out first whether they believe Brigham Young was infallible before bringing up the physical intercourse thing. If they believe it was only his opinion and he was mistaken (or whatever), another good discussion is how one can trust prophets who speak off the cuff and are mistaken so much.
 
I hear what you are saying but the references for most of these are talks given in general conference while in leadership positions and specifically direscted to speak on those subjects. I’m not so willing to let an LDS claim that false doctrines were just speculation while telling me that their church is led by direct revelation through THE “prophet”. Especially since all of Mormonism is based on JS and all SLC CoJCoLDS is based subsequently on BY.
 
Yeah, I know. It’s tough.

By the way, to the original post, I feel ya. Besides what everyone else has said, I don’t know why a woman would want to be a goddess who plays no role in her family’s life, is never spoken to by and cannot speak to her children, is largely ignored by her husband’s church, etc. 😦
 
Brad Haas:
That’s true, Majick, but I’d caution anyone against using that information in debate with LDS. At least, for example, find out first whether they believe Brigham Young was infallible before bringing up the physical intercourse thing. If they believe it was only his opinion and he was mistaken (or whatever), another good discussion is how one can trust prophets who speak off the cuff and are mistaken so much.
Click to expand...
You are joking, right? The number of mistakes of the kind you are referring to that have been made by past LDS GAs have been miniscule compared to the volume of output, and the time span involved. The reason why it looks like that to you is because in places like this people are only interested in the errors; therefore it is blown out of all proportion.

amgid
 
No, I wasn’t joking. I expect better from the prophets, based on what they have said.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
Much of what you’ve posted is not what the LDS Church currently teaches. If this is on the CA website they need to correct it. It’s imperative that we truly understand the nature of their doctrine so that we don’t attack their church for something it doesn’t even teach.
Click to expand...
Mormons (I’m pretty sure) believe that God the Father was once human (or some variation of) who eventually became a God of this universe.

“He [God] is our Father–the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;” (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)
 
Brad Haas:
No, I wasn’t joking. I expect better from the prophets, based on what they have said.
Click to expand...
Didn’t the Popes ever make any mistakes? Where does it say in the Bible that prophets must be infallible? How do you know that the prophets in the Bible never made any mistakes? The amount of their writings that have survived is only a tiny fraction of what they must have written or spoken in their lives. The book of Isaiah (to take an example) is only 35,731 words long, or 150,216 characters (no space), or 188,088 characters (with space). That is equivalent to approximately 40 allowed posts on this board. I have been here for a little over three months, and I have posted nearly 450 posts. Are you suggesting that that is the only thing that Isaiah ever said or wrote in his life? How do you know that Isaiah never made any mistakes in the many things that he must have written or spoken in his life?

The only thing that we have survived of their writings are in fact their canonized scriptures. If you want to make a valid comparison between modern LDS, and OT and NT prophets and Apostles on fair grounds, and using a level playing field, then you would have to compare like with like; that means comparing their canonized scriptures with modern LDS canonized scriptures. I am all in favor of making such a comparison. Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations that I have taught” (Teachings, p 368).

Didn’t Peter deny Jesus three times and had to repent? Didn’t Paul persecute the church, and assent to the murder of Stephan? Didn’t he write some silly things in his epistles? Didn’t Thomas doubt, and have to be reproved by the Lord? Didn’t Jonah try to escape from Jehovah, and God had him swallowed up in the belly of a fish? Didn’t David and Solomon (both prophets) commit grave sins? Didn’t Moses and Aaron sin at the waters of Meribah, and were denied permission to enter the Promised Land? Didn’t Noah get drunk, and expose himself indecently in his tent, as a result of which his son Ham was cursed? None of the prophet or Apostle of ancient times had been under such constant public scrutiny as modern LDS prophets and Apostles have been and still are. If they had been, and we had everything that they ever said or wrote in their lives, and could make a comparison, I believe you would find that modern LDS prophets have faired better than they did.

amgid
 
Semper Fi:
Mormons (I’m pretty sure) believe that God the Father was once human (or some variation of) who eventually became a God of this universe.

“He [God] is our Father–the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;” (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)
Click to expand...
“As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become,” is the ‘little couplet’ (as current President and prophet Gordon Hinckley calls it) attributed to Lorenzo Snow, the fifth prophet and president of the LDS church. Gordon Hinkley affirmed the second part of the belief as contained in the couplet at the October, 1994, General Conference:
On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.
Click to expand...
HOWEVER - Hinckley was not the contemporary president and prophet when he made this statement and would not become so until 5 months later.

AFTER Hinckley became president and prophet, in 1997, the question was asked again for an August 4, 1997 Time magazine cover story:
On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it… I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”
Click to expand...
The Office of the First Presidency issued a statement saying that Hinckley had been misquoted (and Hinckley made reference to being misquoted at the GC of October of 1997) and Time released the exact transcript which backed up Time’s version:
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
Click to expand...
A: Yeah
Click to expand...
Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
Click to expand...
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
Click to expand...
In an earlier interview printed in the April 13, 1997 San Francisco Chronicle Hinckley was quoted:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
Click to expand...
A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.
Click to expand...
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
Click to expand...
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.
Click to expand...
…continued…
 
…continued…

So to answer the question “Do LDS believe that God was once man?” I would think that the answer would be a qualified… yes. As Hinckley notes, it may no longer be emphasized but Eternal Progression (See page 14 of Gospel Principles - “Our Heavenly Father Presented a Plan for Us to Become like Him”) is certainly a current teaching and “as man is” seems to naturally followed by “God once was” with the ‘couplet’ making sense in terms of Eternal Progression. You can download the LDS book Gospel Principles here at the LDS website . Although it doesn’t answer all of the ‘controversial’ teachings which are part of Mormon history, it does give a pretty complete overview of what is currently taught by the LDS church. Although the controversial teachings - such as God having physically impregnated Mary - can be found elsewhere, as amgid says, they represent a miniscule portion of what has ever been taught by any Mormon leader. Some of the other teachings which have been mentioned on this thread are current and/or canonical teachings and what I have certainly discovered is that it’s best to stick to those for discussion purposes because they are, in fact, valid teachings and remarks that just happened to find their way into print and are no longer taught. You always should keep in mind that the LDS canon is open to both revelation and scripture and is liable to change with a word from the living prophet. That makes it difficult, sometimes, to pin down what LDS doctrine is on a given subject - which is why I qualify answers to such questions as “was God once a man” because an argument could certainly be made that although Hinkley vehemently answered “yes” before he was prophet, his answers have been somewhat equivocal since then but I think the answer is found in the teaching of Eternal Progression just as much as in Hinkley’s 1994 comments.
 
amgid, I was speaking of LDS prophets, who have made claims about infallibility that lead me to expect more from them (see, for example, D&C Declaration 1). The Biblical prophets never claimed to be unable to lead people astray. The Church has claimed to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, and she has been.

The basis of the LDS prophets’ authority is that everyone else messed up, and only they commune with God and receive revelation to guide the church. I have no problem with such a claim, if one wishes to make it, but I’m not going to believe them if they’re able to teach as doctrine things that later turn out to be incorrect.
 
LDS prophets are known for changing canonized scripture to suit their agenda. JS did it, BY did it spencer kimball. That alleged prophets would direct an entire church in certain practices while keeping the aligned revelation directing said practices “secret” is bad enough but then when these “revelations” are canonized as scripture the practice stops? or in some cases the canonized scriptures are outright lies that when exposed are changed. Then later the scriptures are changed again…based on the latest marketing info. Compare the 1830 BoM with the 1977 and then the current. compare the Book of Commandments with the 1833 D&C and then the 1977 D&C and then the current. Look at when the changes were made and what the results of those changes were. This isn’t milk before meat or line upon line but outright chaos and contradiction. BY teaches Adam God as DOCTRINE in genreal conference then years later LDS prophets declare it false doctrine. If the LDS prophet says that another LDS prophet taught false doctrine to the church in general conference then one of those guys (if not all) would appear to be a false prophet. I think the REAL history of the LDS church (you know, the one they “revise” now and excommunicate historians for revealing) proves that the LDS church is a manmdade religion at best.
 
Brad Haas:
amgid, I was speaking of LDS prophets, who have made claims about infallibility that lead me to expect more from them (see, for example, D&C Declaration 1). The Biblical prophets never claimed to be unable to lead people astray. The Church has claimed to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, and she has been.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything in D & C Declatation 1 that states that a prophet is infallible. It states that “the Lord will never allow the President of the church to lead you astray”. I hope you can see the difference.
The basis of the LDS prophets’ authority is that everyone else messed up, and only they commune with God and receive revelation to guide the church. I have no problem with such a claim, if one wishes to make it, but I’m not going to believe them if they’re able to teach as doctrine things that later turn out to be incorrect.
Click to expand...
The basis of LDS prophet’s authority is not “that everyone else messed up”. It’s based on revelation. And if God reveals something new, that means it hasn’t been revealed before. It adds to our “light and knowledge”. We, as a church, are progressing. There’s a lot of things that we just don’t know or understand and thankfully we have leaders (and members) who believe in the power of revelation and direction communication with God so that we CAN learn new truths.

If it were just men arbitrarily makings changes without revelation from God, then I would agree with you completely.

Have a great day!

DeeAnn
 
Brad Haas:
amgid, I was speaking of LDS prophets, who have made claims about infallibility that lead me to expect more from them (see, for example, D&C Declaration 1). The Biblical prophets never claimed to be unable to lead people astray. The Church has claimed to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, and she has been.
Click to expand...
I have addressed this subject before on this board, but you may have missed it; so I will here briefly summarize it for you once more. When Wilford Woodruff made that statement, he did not mean by it to say that the President of the Church is incapable of ever making a mistake in doctrine. What he meant was that the Lord will not allow the president of the Church to willfully (knowingly, intentionally, purposefully) lead the Church astray. There is a big difference between the two. You are ignoring the context in which those remarks were made. They were spoken in conjunction with the polygamy issues that dominated the headlines at that time. Congress had passed a law making polygamy illegal in the US. The Church had issued a formal statement renouncing the practice of polygamy in compliance with the law. There were many faithful LDS at that time who doubted whether this was done out of political expediency rather than by genuine revelation from God. President Woodruff was trying to reassure them that it was done by revelation rather than by expediency. When he had declared to them that he had received a revelation to that effect, he couldn’t exactly be making a mistake about it. He was either lying to them or telling the truth. He was trying to reassure them that he was not in a position to lie about such a thing, and pretend that he had received a revelation from God to do something when in fact he hadn’t. When he had told them that it was the will of God to discontinue the practice, they had better believe that it was the will of God, and not some figment of his own imagination. That is what he meant when he said that the Lord would not allow someone in his position to lead the Church astray. It didn’t mean that the president of the Church is incapable of ever making a mistake in doctrine. Those are two different things.
The basis of the LDS prophets’ authority is that everyone else messed up,…
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by that. That is not “the basis of the LDS prophets’ authority”. The basis is that an apostasy occurred of the early Christian Church, and the keys of priesthood authority were lost, which were later restored through Joseph Smith. That is not the same thing as saying that “everyone else messed up”. There were many good and faithful Christians in the world who accomplished a lot of good in the world, and who still do.
… and only they commune with God and receive revelation to guide the church.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct. That is the claim that the LDS Church makes.
I have no problem with such a claim, if one wishes to make it, but I’m not going to believe them if they’re able to teach as doctrine things that later turn out to be incorrect.
Click to expand...
See all of the above.

amgid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top