- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
While I haven’t heard the teaching in a long, long time in church I can imagine it coming from some of the old guard. One of them stood up in testimony meeting yesterday and referred to non-members as Gentiles – something else I have not heard in a very long time. Gerald wrote:Official doctrine or no, I’ve been taught this all my life. The emphasis, however, has always been on “becoming like God.” The first part has never been addressed much in my past experience. The only thing I have heard regarding God’s origins has been highly speculative stuff coming from other members NOT what was taught in Church: “Our God the Father was once the Jesus Christ of his day” or “God had his own God the Father who had his own God the Father (I guess we have a God the Grandfather somewhere?)” I’ve been a bit puzzled by the discussion that tends to whirl about this. It always seemed a basic doctrine to me (both parts of the couplet). Interesting.
I couldn’t get on line this morning until lunch time so I still need to digest some of the replies here.
My wife also said she was taught this her whole life, that “…as we are God once was…”. I guess I get stuck on things that I once had a different understanding of and I need validation. Some things are OK but sometimes the reply “we don’t know…” doesn’t sit well with me. This is one of those because of the “revelation” that occurred. In my eye, a revelation cannot be backed out of or changed unless it was false to begin with. I need to be able to give a definite answer to things like this when asked by non-members (Gentiles?) or even youth in my class so I am going with the entire couplet with a caveat that we don’t know everything about this, especially the first part, that God was [in some way (not necessarily starting where we did)] as we are now. I also have a problem with following doctrine or teachings that I don’t fully understand since some direction can alter life’s course as I have found out. I had a course change that turned into very negative experience and I am still trying, not too successfully, to recover from. Almost a show stopper for me and not going to let it happen again.
Doctrine or not both ends of the couplet are alive and well. Just ask any of the High Priest in my ward. They all believe it and preach it nearly every Sunday. As for me I actually think it is the one doctrine the church should embrace and run with. It is unique and it is a fantastic doctrine. I only wish it were true.
Leaving behind black-and-white thinking is difficult – but it’s really important. Kipper wrote:Some things are OK but sometimes the reply “we don’t know…” doesn’t sit well with me. This is one of those because of the “revelation” that occurred. In my eye, a revelation cannot be backed out of or changed unless it was false to begin with. I need to be able to give a definite answer to things like this when asked
You may need to reevaluate what “revelation” really means. Perhaps it’s not as straightforward as we would like.I know this quote is taught as God the Father. It’s an interesting thought. But you could say it’s true for God the Son, or Jehova, God of the Old Testament. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That is an excellent point, Unknown – and I know quite a few members who interpret it that way. The other way to look at it is as the eastern church does. God the Son became man so we can become God with Him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.