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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is…God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345)

LDS posters:

Where and when did Joseph Smith tell his followers “the great secret” and what is it that was revealed when he “took away the veil”?

Obviously JS was revealing something new since we (Christians?) “had imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity” and he was “refuting this idea”. What was it?

Please provide references. I want to know *exactly *what JS taught about God (the Father).
 
The Mormon church DOES NOT TEACH that God had intercourse with Mary…it is not a teaching recongnized by the church…Catholics do not like it when others tell them what they believe and quote sources to back it up that per those Catholics on this board say “are not official teachings”…or “Catholics are not required to believe in private revelation…no matter what the private revelation teaches, it is not official Catholic belief…”

When Protestants quote the “All have sinned” verse in Romans…Catholics are quick to point out that there are those who never sinned according to Catholic belief…such as Mary…and some even claim John the Baptist…so now we have Catholics claiming that the LDS church teaches that God the Father sinned in his mortal existence…but don’t make the same claim for Christ…why is that? No where in official church teaching is it claimed that God sinned in his mortal existence…why do Catholics quote the catechism and scripture when clarifying Catholic belief…but don’t quote “official” Mormon teaching and their scriptures when making such claims?

Quoting from the Journal of Discourses is NOT OFFICIAL church teachings…so why the double standard for Mormons?

No doubt I’ll be accused of being Mormon or not being what I claim to be…again…for stating such things.
 
Since STM has no insterest in discussing the truth, I finally just put him on IGNORE.
He’s a broken record who just recycles the same old slander every 1-2 weeks.
 
Todd520 said:
Since STM has no insterest in discussing the truth, I finally just put him on IGNORE.
He’s a broken record who just recycles the same old slander every 1-2 weeks.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Mormons believe in a progressing God. I think non-Mormons tend to take those quotes out of the context in which they are offered or without a good understanding of Mormon theology. Mormons generally accept the idea that god is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. so the idea of God “progressing” only applies insofar as it means we are progressing so that God is progressing through what He does through us. He doesn’t get more omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
 
Publisher said:
Quoting from the Journal of Discourses is NOT OFFICIAL church teachings…so why the double standard for Mormons?

No doubt I’ll be accused of being Mormon or not being what I claim to be…again…for stating such things.
Click to expand...
Hi Publisher - I understand that the Mormons state that the JoD is not official church teachings and you are reminding us of that.

I think the problem lies with who the Mormons say Joseph Smith is/was and yet want us also to believe that what he and other prophets of their church say on such matters is not binding. That is a double standard. The quotes provided on these posts are from prophets of the LDS church and are on the subject of God etc and therefore should be considered scripture, IMHO.

From an LDS website called Joseph Smith:

Prophet, Seer, and Revelator

“The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood,” the Lord revealed, "is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses . . . yea, to be a **seer, a **revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."1 At a conference in Amherst, Ohio, 25 January 1832, Joseph Smith was ordained President of the High Priesthood, and acknowledged as such at the conference in Independence, Missouri, 26 April 1832.2

As President of the Church, **the Prophet Joseph received constant guidance from ****heaven. **"**It is my meditation all the day," **he said, "to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind."3

“The grand rule of heaven,” Joseph said, "was that nothing should ever be done on earth without [God] revealing the secret to his servants the prophets."4 This rule holds true for the Church in relation to the living prophet in our day: "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in ****all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."5
 
lax16 said:
Hi Publisher - I understand that the Mormons state that the JoD is not official church teachings and you are reminding us of that.

I think the problem lies with who the Mormons say Joseph Smith is/was and yet want us also to believe that what he and other prophets of their church say on such matters is not binding. That is a double standard. The quotes provided on these posts are from prophets of the LDS church and are on the subject of God etc and therefore should be considered scripture, IMHO.

From an LDS website called Joseph Smith:

Prophet, Seer, and Revelator

“The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood,” the Lord revealed, "is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses . . . yea, to be a **seer, a **revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."1 At a conference in Amherst, Ohio, 25 January 1832, Joseph Smith was ordained President of the High Priesthood, and acknowledged as such at the conference in Independence, Missouri, 26 April 1832.2

As President of the Church, **the Prophet Joseph received constant guidance from ****heaven. **"**It is my meditation all the day," **he said, "to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind."3

“The grand rule of heaven,” Joseph said, "was that nothing should ever be done on earth without [God] revealing the secret to his servants the prophets."4 This rule holds true for the Church in relation to the living prophet in our day: "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in ****all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."5
Click to expand...
We Catholics believe in private revelation apart from public revelation. As far as I can tell public revelation is that which is in the canon of scripture and the tradition of the church. It is well defined. No Catholic is required to believe in private revelation even if the Church says it is worthy of belief.

I wonder if the LDS could say the same thing about some of Joseph’s later teachings. Perhaps they are worthy of belief, but not required belief. Perhaps they could also be considered private revelation to Joseph since they were never canonized. Could a Mormon make this distinction? Perhaps all they need to believe about God is what is found in their first article of faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Perhaps they are given a wider latitude to define exactly what that means according to their own private understanding of scripture without imposing their beliefs on other Mormons.
 
lax16 said:
Hi Publisher - I understand that the Mormons state that the JoD is not official church teachings and you are reminding us of that.

I think the problem lies with who the Mormons say Joseph Smith is/was and yet want us also to believe that what he and other prophets of their church say on such matters is not binding. That is a double standard. The quotes provided on these posts are from prophets of the LDS church and are on the subject of God etc and therefore should be considered scripture, IMHO.

From an LDS website called Joseph Smith:

Prophet, Seer, and Revelator

“The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood,” the Lord revealed, "is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses . . . yea, to be a **seer, a **revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."1 At a conference in Amherst, Ohio, 25 January 1832, Joseph Smith was ordained President of the High Priesthood, and acknowledged as such at the conference in Independence, Missouri, 26 April 1832.2

As President of the Church, **the Prophet Joseph received constant guidance from ****heaven. **"**It is my meditation all the day," **he said, "to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind."3

“The grand rule of heaven,” Joseph said, "was that nothing should ever be done on earth without [God] revealing the secret to his servants the prophets."4 This rule holds true for the Church in relation to the living prophet in our day: "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in ****all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."5
Click to expand...
I understand…but if we are going to state that “Mormons believe XYZ” when in fact they do not and any given doctrine MUST be approved by the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve to become “official doctrine” AND have such reference in their scritpures…then claiming “Mormons believe XYZ” when in fact they do not is a problem with Truth…not with the Mormons but with those who claim “Mormons believe XYZ”.
 
Publisher said:
I understand…but if we are going to state that “Mormons believe XYZ” when in fact they do not and any given doctrine MUST be approved by the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve to become “official doctrine” AND have such reference in their scritpures…then claiming “Mormons believe XYZ” when in fact they do not is a problem with Truth…not with the Mormons but with those who claim “Mormons believe XYZ”.
Click to expand...
What is being stated is what LDS prophets/founders taught (their quotes) - what separated them from all other existing religions - not what they say they believe today.

If you or I stopped a Catholic on the street and asked them what they believe about birth control/abortion/or any other hot topic issue, they could reply “I believe______”. However, their beliefs may not be in line with Church teaching.

Honestly, the Mormons I know do not know their past prophets teachings on this subject. They focus on the today, and want to be considered mainstream Christians. However, from the beginning, the LDS prophets claimed to have a different message from the one that all other Christians had.

If the LDS want to ignore that part of their history or now claim that their prophet was not speaking as a prophet (even though he was speaking in front of a group regarding religious matters) then 🤷

There are many quotes from LDS prophets on this subject. The teachings are different than Catholics and Protestants on this issue, now matter how they try to re-write their history.
 
lax16 said:
What is being stated is what LDS prophets/founders taught (their quotes) - what separated them from all other existing religions - not what they say they believe today.

If you or I stopped a Catholic on the street and asked them what they believe about birth control/abortion/or any other hot topic issue, they could reply “I believe______”. However, their beliefs may not be in line with Church teaching.

Honestly, the Mormons I know do not know their past prophets teachings on this subject. They focus on the today, and want to be considered mainstream Christians. However, from the beginning, the LDS prophets claimed to have a different message from the one that all other Christians had.

If the LDS want to ignore that part of their history or now claim that their prophet was not speaking as a prophet (even though he was speaking in front of a group regarding religious matters) then 🤷

There are many quotes from LDS prophets on this subject. The teachings are different than Catholics and Protestants on this issue, now matter how they try to re-write their history.
Click to expand...
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?

In my humble opinion…it highlights a flaw not with Mormon belief…but in speaking the truth concerning them…

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?

Maybe I’m just too “Quaker” in this respect.🙂 Our WORDS DO MEAN SOMETHING and if they do not reflect honesty and truth when spoken…there is a “defect” in us that should be addressed. If we are going to say “Mormons believe XYZ.” instead of “Some Mormon leaders stated XYZ, but what they stated is not Mormon teachings as held by the LDS church.”…shouldn’t there be some truth to our words that “Mormons believe XYZ”?
 
Catholic20064 said:
We Catholics believe in private revelation apart from public revelation. As far as I can tell public revelation is that which is in the canon of scripture and the tradition of the church. It is well defined. No Catholic is required to believe in private revelation even if the Church says it is worthy of belief.

I wonder if the LDS could say the same thing about some of Joseph’s later teachings. Perhaps they are worthy of belief, but not required belief. Perhaps they could also be considered private revelation to Joseph since they were never canonized. Could a Mormon make this distinction? Perhaps all they need to believe about God is what is found in their first article of faith: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Perhaps they are given a wider latitude to define exactly what that means according to their own private understanding of scripture without imposing their beliefs on other Mormons.
Click to expand...
I found this on Light Planet under What do Mormons Believe (an LDS website):

Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions **that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Rom. 8:16-18; cf. Mal. 2:10).

**Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father **(Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. **A Heavenly Mother shares **parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Obviously, they have a different set of beliefs than mainstream Christianity (as stated on this LDS website) and the teachings are from “authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy.”

I wonder from what scripture these beliefs are “inferred?”

We are the “actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father…” So, God is my actual Father??? Who is my mother???
 
Publisher said:
The Mormon church DOES NOT TEACH that God had intercourse with Mary…it is not a teaching recongnized by the church…

Ah…therein lies the problem. In fact, LDS “prophets” DID teach this doctrine. The quotes have been posted to prove it.

Catholics do not like it when others tell them what they believe and quote sources to back it up that per those Catholics on this board say “are not official teachings”…or “Catholics are not required to believe in private revelation…no matter what the private revelation teaches, it is not official Catholic belief…”

Ah, therein lies the next problem. You cannot compare the Catholics and Mormons like you are trying to do. If some Catholic says something that is quoted 1000 years later, so what? He was NOT a PROPHET who made his teachings less than 200 years ago. LDS prophets talk to God…true Prophets will not teach doctrine or teachings that confuse and mislead. I am surprised you cannot see the difference

When Protestants quote the “All have sinned” verse in Romans…Catholics are quick to point out that there are those who never sinned according to Catholic belief…such as Mary…and some even claim John the Baptist…so now we have Catholics claiming that the LDS church teaches that God the Father sinned in his mortal existence…but don’t make the same claim for Christ…why is that? No where in official church teaching is it claimed that God sinned in his mortal existence…why do Catholics quote the catechism and scripture when clarifying Catholic belief…but don’t quote “official” Mormon teaching and their scriptures when making such claims?

Ah, therein lies even the next problem. As these quotes demonstrate, the LDS Church absolutetly DID teach the God sinned. Can you not see it? Do I need to post it all again for you?

Quoting from the Journal of Discourses is NOT OFFICIAL church teachings…so why the double standard for Mormons?

There is no double standard. There can only be a double standard when the two sides both are equal. The Catholic Church does not have a prophet who talks to God…the LDS Church does. Holding a prophet to a standard is not a double standard.

No doubt I’ll be accused of being Mormon or not being what I claim to be…again…for stating such things.

No. I will not claim you are LDS. I simply believe you are unaware of things in your your current topic
Click to expand...
 
Todd520 said:
Since STM has no insterest in discussing the truth, I finally just put him on IGNORE.
He’s a broken record who just recycles the same old slander every 1-2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Translation: I can’t dispute intelligently what STM claims because he quotes my prophets and I am stuck. If I say they did not teach it, I am wrong because they clearly did. If I say they taught false doctrine, then I am stuck because that means they were not really prophets. So it is better if I join the others who know STM has proven our LDS church is false and ignore him.
 
40.png
SirThomasMore:
Friend Thomas, when one says that “Mormons believe XYZ” AND in fact they do not believe what is being related…do you not see that a problem?

If you understand that the JoD is NOT official LDS doctrine…to state otherwise IS an issue for me…but as I said…this must just be a “Quaker” thing…and Mormons do not officially teach that God the Father sinned…to state otherwise is not truthful.
 
Publisher said:
If you understand that the JoD is NOT official LDS doctrine…to state otherwise IS an issue for me…but as I said…this must just be a “Quaker” thing…and Mormons do not officially teach that God the Father sinned…to state otherwise is not truthful.
Click to expand...
No one is stating that the JoD is official LDS doctrine. What people are saying is that many of the statements found in the JoD were stated in authoritative settings, such as General Conferences, where, according to Gospel Principles, we can find the inspired teachings of the prophets.

The JoD is not a doctrinal work, however it contains statements made in authoritative settings. I assume you are aware of that.
 
Publisher said:
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?

I don’t believe (based on OT teachings) that prophets were sent to speculate. Did Moses speculate?

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?

Did I do this? I understand that a Mormon today can state his beliefs and that they can be in direct opposition to their founding members/prophets teachings. Does that make sense? I don’t think so. But sure they can do it.

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?

As I see it, the Mormon leaders were prophets and were (as they say) “the mouthpiece of God.” If God said it, it sticks. Period. How can someone be a prophet and say something that is not meant to be held as belief? Isn’t that the very reason for sending a prophet - to pass on what God wants us to know?

In my humble opinion…it highlights a flaw not with Mormon belief…but in speaking the truth concerning them…

**Like I said, if a Mormon today wants to disagree with their prophets and their teachings, that is their right. Unless their church teaches that they must agree. However, it is up for discussion!
**

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?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Did I state falsehoods concerning LDS?
I know many Catholics that have issues with (or simply are ignorant of) Church teachings. However, the teachings do not change. And Catholics who do not follow them are not practicing Catholics.

Maybe I’m just too “Quaker” in this respect.🙂 Our WORDS DO MEAN SOMETHING and if they do not reflect honesty and truth when spoken…there is a “defect” in us that should be addressed. If we are going to say “Mormons believe XYZ.” instead of “Some Mormon leaders stated XYZ, but what they stated is not Mormon teachings as held by the LDS church.”…shouldn’t there be some truth to our words that “Mormons believe XYZ”?
Click to expand...
I do not know much about Quakers. I am not sure what you are saying - that when we follow a religion we don’t need to follow the teachings laid out by its prophets?
I agree that a Mormon can say that they believe X when their prophets taught Z. However, it is in opposition to their church’s original teachings.
Why would JS need to restore the church if later followers were going to reject his teachings? I am very orthodox when it comes to religion - I believe people should follow the teachings as they are meant to be followed - without interpretation. I guess I am just too “Catholic” in this respect! 🙂
 
Publisher said:
Friend Thomas, when one says that “Mormons believe XYZ” AND in fact they do not believe what is being related…do you not see that a problem?

If you understand that the JoD is NOT official LDS doctrine…to state otherwise IS an issue for me…but as I said…this must just be a “Quaker” thing…and Mormons do not officially teach that God the Father sinned…to state otherwise is not truthful.
Click to expand...
Actually, when I read the quotes from their prophets, it matters not what they claim now is doctrine. The fact is, and will remain, that LDS prophets taught what I have claimed they taught.

Now, LDS Church runs from much of the old teachings. Again, it doesnot matter. The teachings exist. And the fact the Mormons now run from it only goes to show that they know the prophets taught false doctrine.

Therefore, it proves they were false prophets…no matter how far the LDS runs from it now
 
lax16 said:
I do not know much about Quakers. I am not sure what you are saying - that when we follow a religion we don’t need to follow the teachings laid out by its prophets?
I agree that a Mormon can say that they believe X when their prophets taught Z. However, it is in opposition to their church’s original teachings.
Why would JS need to restore the church if later followers were going to reject his teachings? I am very orthodox when it comes to religion - I believe people should follow the teachings as they are meant to be followed - without interpretation. I guess I am just too “Catholic” in this respect! 🙂
Click to expand...
I do not know nor understand too much about Mormon leaders “speculating”…it makes no sense to me…HOWEVER the official LDS teaching do not teach the things the LDS are accused of…no matter what their prophets speculated about…to present so called “speculations” as LDS belief is simply a falsehood.

Friends believe that our words are our bond. To speak or post in such a way that hearers and readers would believe what is being presented is the truth of the matter…when in fact it is not…is deceit…and if we accuse the LDS of similar tactics when presenting other’s beliefs does not mitigate our need to speak truth and present things accurately…if “official” LDS teaching does not reflect what we present as LDS teaching…that IMO is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top