You are posting opinions of priesthood leaders and arguing that they constitute LDS doctrine. The fact is that LDS scripture does not state:
* Christ is a saved being (even McConkie limits the description to being an exemplar of a saved being)
* God was one human
The reason LDS leaders have taught these principles is because Christ commented that he is doing everything that he has seen the Father do. Thus since Christ saved mankind, it makes sense that the Father has done the same thing to at one point in time.
McConkie and others use logic to come to their positions. But sometimes they are wrong, as McConkie has admitted on occasion.
Yet you choose to dismiss President Hinckley, a prophet, who has stated publicly that it is not LDS doctrine that God was once a mortal man. Why do you ignore an LDS prophet, and rely on the words of an LDS apostle? Convenience?
OK. You're familiar with BYU prof Stephen Robinson, I assume? He wrote: Also, the LDS believe that all apostles are prophets in the former sense, and therefore we often do not distinguish between apostles and prophets, but customarily use the term prophet for both. (Robinson & Craig Blomberg, How Wide the Divide, IVP, p. 62)
I find it quite interesting the way LDS apologists play with titles. In reality, Robinson acknowledges that an LDS "apostle" is on the same interchangeable plain as an LDS "prophet" like Joseph Smith. But look @ the downplayed way you reference LDS "apostles"--as mere priesthood leaders!
You are posting opinions of priesthood leaders and arguing that they constitute LDS doctrine. The fact is that LDS scripture does not state...God was one human
Let's revisit Robinson, shall we?
I'd say this comment of yours aptly qualifies as a disengenous response. Let's look at what BYU professor Robinson has conceded (tho he tries to make a false distinction between official, official doctrine and just plain "quasi" doctrine which is "officially" asserted by the Church--as if there was such a thing!!!!!!!!)...you try to make a false distinction between scriptural doctrine and Mormon leader opinions...As if Joseph Smith would go around @ funerals & "opinionize" on how to become gods!!! --ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THE LDS CHURCH ATTEMPTING TO COUNTER OR CORRECT IT FOR 150 YEARS!!!
Robinson: The official doctrine of the Church on deification does not extend in essentials beyond what is said in the Bible, with its Doctrine and Covenants parallels, and in D&C 132:19-20. Again, don't misunderstand me; there can no doubt that the DOCTRINE of deification is FIRMLY AND OFFICIALLY ASSERTED BY THE LDS CHURCH. I am only trying to sort out what is canonical from what is homiletical for the benefit of non-LDS readers...To the scriptural passages above I WOULD ADD LORENZO SNOW'S EPIGRAM AND JOSEPH SMITH'S STATEMENT IN THE FUNERAL ADDRESS FOR KING FOLLETT THAT GOD IS AN EXALTED MAN. NEITHER STATEMENT IS SCRIPTURAL OR CANONIZED IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, AND NEITHER HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OR ELUCIDATED TO THE CHURCH IN ANY OFFICIAL MANNER, BUT THEY ARE SO WIDELY ACCEPTED BY LATTER-DAY SAINTS THAT THIS TECHNICAL POINT HAS BECOME MOOT. EACH OF THESE TWO QUASI-OFFICIAL statements ASSERTS FLATLY THAT THERE WAS ONCE A TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF OUR CREATION WHEN GOD WAS HUMAN, JUST AS THERE WILL BE A TIME AFTER THE FINAL RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT WHEN EXALTED HUMANS WILL BE GODS...To sum up...The belief that God the Father was once a human being rests mainly on two technically uncanonized sources (sermons of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow) WHICH HAVE, HOWEVER, IN EFFECT BECOME NORMATIVE. THE CHURCH DOES TEACH OFFICIALLY THAT...EXALTED HUMANS...WILL EXERCISE DIVINE POWERS, INCLUDING THE POWER OF CREATION..." (Stephen Robinson, How Wide the Divide, IVP, 1997, pp. 87-89)
Robinson's acknowledgement that examples of homilectic sermons constitute doctrines "officially" taught by the church even if technically uncanonized means that you should stop trying to hide behind such a false distinction in light of what Smith, Young, McConkie & other LDS "prophets" & "apostles" have taught via either...
(a) ...tithe-produced products;
(b) ...products reviewed by The First Presidency and/or General Authorities of the Church;
(c) ...or taught from the tabernacle pulpits & have been reviewed by the speaker to catch any transmission errors.
The fact that even LDS leaders acknowledge these exceptions to uncanonized teachings being "official" should make LDS apologists run & hide as false teachers...having been "outed" for using "technical" points to try to cover up obvious realities.
To summarize, using Robinson's own words, he acknowledged that homilectic sermons indeed constitute...
(1) A doctrine...firmly and officially asserted by the LDS Church...
(2) Are often so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints as truth that the technical apologetic you just attempted has become moot.
(3) And why is that again? Because as Robinson--who at least on this point is more forthright than most LDS--that these sermonic expositions, in effect become normative in the lives of LDSaints who may gobble up every sermonic word as pure gospel... AND because as Robinson said, the church does teach officially these points!!!
Official teaching...is official asserting...is official teaching & asserting. (Got any "technical" counters other than a gag over Robinson's mouth or unplugging his computer?)
Yet you choose to dismiss President Hinckley, a prophet, who has stated publicly that it is not LDS doctrine that God was once a mortal man. Why do you ignore an LDS prophet, and rely on the words of an LDS apostle? Convenience?
OK. You're too funny. I pick out--to use a BYU prof's own words--an LDS "doctrine...firmly and officially asserted by the LDS Church...so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that [any] technical [clarifications have] become moot"...due to these sermonic expositions sourced in TWO LDS prophets (Smith & Snow) having become "in effect...normative" as "the church does teach [this] officially."
And what do you do in response? You pick out some obscure journalistic interview --also just as uncanonized--to critique me!
At least I can point to LDS curricula books to show that Snow's couplet has been widely taught in this & recent generations of Mormons. (Can you do the same about Hinckley's journalistic interview?) Tell me, how do you LDS apologists live with your schizophrenic selves? You bonk me over the head with a standard you couldn't even comply within your accusation of me!!! (And since when does a "journalistic interview" by a prophet out-trump generation after generation after generation after generation of Mormon teaching!!!) [I guess some folks just have more gall than others]
McConkie and others use logic to come to their positions. But sometimes they are wrong, as McConkie has admitted on occasion.
This reminds me of the recent story where a babysitter, in having fun, swung her charge around in a room while he was in a sleeping bag. The toddler's head was hit on the wall & died. Nothing re: bad intent in this death...I mean other babysitters & parents have left small objects around in which babies & toddlers have choked to death on.
It just seems to me that if you have 70 eyes & ears (the number of LDS general authorities) all looking at the truth welfare of the church, they're going to notice the spiritual hazards laying on the floor where the "still milk" drinkers are crawling around.
Some folks like Romney earned big bucks as a venture capitalist, but truth isn't a venture guessing-game enterprise where LDS "apostles" sling it in a sleeping bag, slap a title "Mormon Doctrine" on it, and hurl it around Mormon living rooms hoping the milk drinkers won't have their heads slammed spiritually by trying to exercise philosophical logic & outright false teachings (otherwise known as heresies) that you just told us are there.
IF you know anything at all about the history of "Mormon Doctrine," then this response re: McConkie is disengenous. It only explains McConkie's 1958 version of "Mormon Doctrine." Anything republished since then--with FULL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY--and anything that's remained in there in its last reprint--was done with full First Presidency & General Authority oversight.
McConkie as a solo target applies only to 1958. Any critical assessments or putdowns of republished books of "Mormon Doctrine" since then is an outright slam against the entire First Presidency & General Authorities & the editors & publishers of the book. Many authors make as you reference it mistakes--but when a book is republished, those are fixed. I know many such "mistakes" in McConkie's '58 version were "fixed." But if mistakes continue in the 1966 & 1978 revisions--and you imply that you acknowledge that's the case--then it's not just a one-man doctrinal show.
So you need to come clean. Does your assessment above apply only to McConkie's 1958 version, or ensuing versions as well?
Backdrop of explanation: In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie states that: On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder [Spencer W.] Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes....My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction. (The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, Deseret Book Publishers, owned by the LDS Church, 2003)