Mormon Biblical Support For?

[Serapha]

I believe your question can be answered through the below link, click it, scroll down, and click on "The Origin and Destiny of Mankind."

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/mpandrs.htm/john%20taylor.htm

This is a lesson manual, published and approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Therefore, it is official doctrine.

Hi there!



That reference..."The Origin and Destiny of Mankind" does not answer this question from the OP.


"And also does mormonism teach that God was originally a man who turned into god?"

where is "that" in doctrine?


~serapha~

 

[twhite982]

Hi there!



That reference..."The Origin and Destiny of Mankind" does not answer this question from the OP.


"And also does mormonism teach that God was originally a man who turned into god?"

where is "that" in doctrine?


~serapha~

If when you say doctrine you mean LDS scripture the thought that "God was originally a man who turned into god" is not there nor even implied.

Gordon B. Hinkley spoke out against this "teaching" and has said it has no precedence.

Tom

 

[baker]

If when you say doctrine you mean LDS scripture the thought that "God was originally a man who turned into god" is not there nor even implied.

Gordon B. Hinkley spoke out against this "teaching" and has said it has no precedence.

Tom

Twhite,

If we can't believe Joseph Smith when he said god was a man first, how can one seriously believe Hinckley when he contradicts Smith? Who does one believe, Smith or Hinkley? Was Smith leading people astray in his teachings or is Hinkley?

I think what the posters on this forum are starting to say is, "where is the credibility in the words from the lds prophets"?

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

If we can't believe Joseph Smith when he said god was a man first, how can one seriously believe Hinckley when he contradicts Smith? Who does one believe, Smith or Hinkley? Was Smith leading people astray in his teachings or is Hinkley?

I think what the posters on this forum are starting to say is, "where is the credibility in the words from the lds prophets"?

That's easy.

To settle the issue, we just have to go to scripture and since the part of "as man is God once was" is not even implied, except in Jesus' case, I would agree with Gordon B. Hinkley. This doesn't destroy my confidence in things Joseph Smith taught as I stated before I allow them lee-way as I know they are growing. However the church was in the past, I recognize what the church is now that I'm a part of. That foundation is still standing strong and I see the good fruits of the early pioneer efforts.

If the KFD or Snow couplet was supposed to be recieved as scripture and the Lord wanted it as so, then we would have it in the D&C.

Tom

 

[baker]

That's easy.

To settle the issue, we just have to go to scripture and since the part of "as man is God once was" is not even implied, except in Jesus' case, I would agree with Gordon B. Hinkley. This doesn't destroy my confidence in things Joseph Smith taught as I stated before I allow them lee-way as I know they are growing. However the church was in the past, I recognize what the church is now that I'm a part of. That foundation is still standing strong and I see the good fruits of the early pioneer efforts.

Truely amazing. I would not be able to dismiss Smiths words so easily IF I truely believed he was a prophet. Remember what Smith said:

"It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...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; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves,..."

The "first principle of the gospel, to know the certainty of the character of god!!! On something this important, did Smith really miss it by so much? How can one even begin to believe that god revealed to him the BOM if he was so completely wrong in knowing the "character of god"?

Glad it works for you.

If the KFD or Snow couplet was supposed to be recieved as scripture and the Lord wanted it as so, then we would have it in the D&C.

Tom

Ahhh, but it is. Again I will repost it for you (D&C 132):

" Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."


This fits so perfectly with Smiths first principle of the gospel, to know for certainty, the character of god. Is this not part of your "eternal progression" revelation? Was not Smith defining, as he clearly stated "the great 'secret' of how god became god" in god's eternal progression?

It truely seems like Hinkley is the one who does not want to read his own history or does not want ot accept it.