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

[Catholic20064]

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”?

Mormons don’t know much about Heavenly Mother. What if Mary was the pre-existent Mother of God since Mormons believe that Mary existed as a Spirit prior to her birth? I don’t know if a Mormon could hold that belief or not.

 

[SirThomasMore]

It all gooes to show that the LDS Church is not led by God…never was.

 

[lax16]

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.

I think what you are saying is that if someone says “I believe in X” but their church teaches that the belief system is “Y” that the person should be respected for their opinion…even if it is in opposition to church teaching?

Or - that God can send a prophet, that prophet(s) then instructs the people, but what the prophet told the people is not important or binding? What matters is how the person *today *feels about those teachings or perhaps, his own interpretation trumps church teaching on the subject?

If a person posts the quotes of prophets of a religion, that is not misrepresenting that religion. The whole Mormon religion was founded on a prophet and his teachings. I don’t know how to get around it. Wouldn’t this be true for all religions - we read about the founding member(s) and their teachings and decide whether or not to sign on?

Can I decide to be Quaker, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist and not abide by the teachings or beliefs? What’s the point of being anything then??

 

[Todd520]

I think what you are saying is that if someone says “I believe in X” but their church teaches that the belief system is “Y” that the person should be respected for their opinion…even if it is in opposition to church teaching?

Or - that God can send a prophet, that prophet(s) then instructs the people, but what the prophet told the people is not important or binding? What matters is how the person *today *feels about those teachings or perhaps, his own interpretation trumps church teaching on the subject?

If a person posts the quotes of prophets of a religion, that is not misrepresenting that religion. The whole Mormon religion was founded on a prophet and his teachings. I don’t know how to get around it. Wouldn’t this be true for all religions - we read about the founding member(s) and their teachings and decide whether or not to sign on?

Can I decide to be Quaker, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist and not abide by the teachings or beliefs? What’s the point of being anything then??

No, I think it is more the case of a person who gave talks on a very regular basis for many different purposes. With the variety and quantity of speaking engagements, he did talk about X, Y, & Z (or at least appeared to).

Now X is the official doctrine and Y & Z appear to contradict, unless you fully understand the context in which the talks were given and what was really said. Over a lifetime of talks by multiple church leaders, there will be both real and erroneous mentions of Y & Z. There will also be some specualtion about the unknowable, what’s on the other side of the curtain.

That’s why it’s important to be crisp on what X is and respect it as proper doctrine.

For a Catholic example, I opened a thread a few days ago:

• Labour leader accuses Pope of supporting discrimination against gays based on quotes from a speech.
• Church must defend against the misqoute, where the speech didn’t even discuss homosexuality.

 

[Publisher]

I think what you are saying is that if someone says “I believe in X” but their church teaches that the belief system is “Y” that the person should be respected for their opinion…even if it is in opposition to church teaching?

If a person claims they believe in “X” but their church teaches “Y”…for us to claim that members of such and such a church believe “X” as a blanket statement is a falsehood…if we are to state what “Mormons” believe…then let’s do so…if past leaders “speculated” beliefs which are against “official” teaching, then we should not state that the church believes “X”, when in fact it does not. We should respect other beliefs…there are enough “distinctive” Mormon beliefs that are accurately represented as “official” without claiming falsehoods.

Or - that God can send a prophet, that prophet(s) then instructs the people, but what the prophet told the people is not important or binding? What matters is how the person *today *feels about those teachings or perhaps, his own interpretation trumps church teaching on the subject?

I** may not hold to the idea of “progressive/different” revelations…it doesn’t matter to me what was once taught by specific people…I cannot…will not…misrepresent what is “official” teachings of any belief system…that is deceitful and wrong…there is no truth in misrepresenting beliefs to vilify those of any religious organization…Catholics sure don’t like it when it is practiced on them…so why would they practice such deceit upon other belief systems?**

If a person posts the quotes of prophets of a religion, that is not misrepresenting that religion. The whole Mormon religion was founded on a prophet and his teachings. I don’t know how to get around it. Wouldn’t this be true for all religions - we read about the founding member(s) and their teachings and decide whether or not to sign on?

If a person quotes from the prophets of a specific religious tradition such as Mormonism that does NOT represent “official” church teachings but claim "This is what "Mormons believe because a prophet speculated concerning a doctrinal topic, that is NOT stating “official” church teachings…just the opinion of who ever stated it. They may have believed it…some of their peers may have beleived it…BUT unless it is “official” church teaching…it should not be presented as “church teaching”…that is a deceit…no way to get around it.

Can I decide to be Quaker, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Atheist and not abide by the teachings or beliefs? What’s the point of being anything then??

Of course you can…you can even state “as a Catholic, Quaker, Mormon I believe things contrary to the official teachings of my religious tradition.”…BUT just because YOU believe things contrary to official teachings…does not mean your religious tradition believes it…and to present the teachings you hold as normative official teachings when in fact…IN FACT they are not…is deceit…not on the part of the religous tradition…but on the part of the person making the claim that “this is what they beleive”…no…it’s not what “they” believe…it’s what you wish to portray as their beliefs…and that is the difference.

 

[Catholic20064]

If Mormons are denying that God was once a man and that God the Father had a Father, I will rejoice over their better understanding of God. We need to leave the LDS some room to grow and get over some of the old teachings of the LDS Church. The Community of Christ (RLDS) has never believed such teachings of Joseph Smith while at the same time proclaiming him to be a prophet. If the Mormons come to the same conclusion regarding these teachings let’s shout Hallelujah and move on. I’m happy to welcome them to the club that believes that God did not have a Father and that God is more than just an exalted man. Instead of criticizing them we should rejoice!

The later teachings of Joseph Smith do not invalidate belief in the Book of Mormon because those later teachings are not in the Book of Mormon or other Mormon scriptures. The Community of Christ has always been accepted as Christian because they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. Maybe our Mormon friends are coming to the same conclusion in spite of the misguided teachings of Joseph just prior to his death. Praise God.

 

[SirThomasMore]

If Mormons are denying that God was once a man and that God the Father had a Father, I will rejoice over their better understanding of God. We need to leave the LDS some room to grow and get over some of the old teachings of the LDS Church. The Community of Christ (RLDS) has never believed such teachings of Joseph Smith while at the same time proclaiming him to be a prophet. If the Mormons come to the same conclusion regarding these teachings let’s shout Hallelujah and move on. I’m happy to welcome them to the club that believes that God did not have a Father and that God is more than just an exalted man. Instead of criticizing them we should rejoice!

The later teachings of Joseph Smith do not invalidate belief in the Book of Mormon because those later teachings are not in the Book of Mormon or other Mormon scriptures. The Community of Christ has always been accepted as Christian because they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. Maybe our Mormon friends are coming to the same conclusion in spite of the misguided teachings of Joseph just prior to his death. Praise God.

not gonna work. They claim to be THE true Church with modern prophets. Then their prophets spew stuff like God was once sinful. That leaves two choices: either they preach a different God, or their prophets taught false doctrine. Either way, they are a false church. Leeway does not change that. The Catholic Church is clear that the LDS Church is not a true church

 

[RebeccaJ]

If Mormons are denying that God was once a man and that God the Father had a Father, I will rejoice over their better understanding of God. We need to leave the LDS some room to grow and get over some of the old teachings of the LDS Church. The Community of Christ (RLDS) has never believed such teachings of Joseph Smith while at the same time proclaiming him to be a prophet. If the Mormons come to the same conclusion regarding these teachings let’s shout Hallelujah and move on. I’m happy to welcome them to the club that believes that God did not have a Father and that God is more than just an exalted man. Instead of criticizing them we should rejoice!

The later teachings of Joseph Smith do not invalidate belief in the Book of Mormon because those later teachings are not in the Book of Mormon or other Mormon scriptures. The Community of Christ has always been accepted as Christian because they have a Trinitarian understanding of God. Maybe our Mormon friends are coming to the same conclusion in spite of the misguided teachings of Joseph just prior to his death. Praise God.

I’ve seen this sentiment more than once. And while it would be a wonderful thing, their doctrines and teachings will never allow for it. Pay attention to any of their general conference talks. There is always at least one that is all about the Holy Trinity being a list of adjectives, that aren’t kind to the Truth about the One True God that Christians worship.

This is not to bag on LDS, just, I think it important to not get carried away with something that is completely outside of reality.

The only way to Truth for a member of the LDS church is to leave it.

 

[lax16]

No, I think it is more the case of a person who gave talks on a very regular basis for many different purposes. With the variety and quantity of speaking engagements, he did talk about X, Y, & Z (or at least appeared to).

Now X is the official doctrine and Y & Z appear to contradict, unless you fully understand the context in which the talks were given and what was really said. Over a lifetime of talks by multiple church leaders, there will be both real and erroneous mentions of Y & Z. There will also be some specualtion about the unknowable, what’s on the other side of the curtain.

That’s why it’s important to be crisp on what X is and respect it as proper doctrine.

For a Catholic example, I opened a thread a few days ago:

• Labour leader accuses Pope of supporting discrimination against gays based on quotes from a speech.
• Church must defend against the misqoute, where the speech didn’t even discuss homosexuality.

Hi Todd - You know, the documents containing the talks are available online and I have read some of them. I don’t know how they could be taken out of context when they exist in their entirety?
It seems to me like an excuse for the Mormons of today backing away from original teachings. How can Joseph Smith and Brigham Young be wrong years later, if they were the mouthpiece of the Lord?
The Ten Commandments are still totally applicable today. All of Jesus’ teachings are 100% relevant today. How can it be that LDS prophets couldn’t be revelant just a couple of hundred years later?

 

[lax16]

Mormons don’t know much about Heavenly Mother. What if Mary was the pre-existent Mother of God since Mormons believe that Mary existed as a Spirit prior to her birth? I don’t know if a Mormon could hold that belief or not.

From light planet:
Heavenly Mother’s Nature Revealed
Spirits cannot be created from nothing in Mormon doctrine. Spirits, like physical children, require an interaction between a mother and father. Before any person can be born on Earth, their spiritual conception must take place in Heaven. Rather than a series of multiple lives through reincarnation, spirits wait their turn to be born into this world.

Does this mean what I think it does?

 

[RebeccaJ]

From light planet:
Heavenly Mother’s Nature Revealed
Spirits cannot be created from nothing in Mormon doctrine. Spirits, like physical children, require an interaction between a mother and father. Before any person can be born on Earth, their spiritual conception must take place in Heaven. Rather than a series of multiple lives through reincarnation, spirits wait their turn to be born into this world.

Does this mean what I think it does?

Maybe, it depends on which member of the Mormon church you ask, who they’re with, and what last Sunday’s lesson was about.

 

[lax16]

Publisher:
If a person claims they believe in “X” but their church teaches “Y”…for us to claim that members of such and such a church believe “X” as a blanket statement is a falsehood…if we are to state what “Mormons” believe…then let’s do so…if past leaders “speculated” beliefs which are against “official” teaching, then we should not state that the church believes “X”, when in fact it does not. We should respect other beliefs…there are enough “distinctive” Mormon beliefs that are accurately represented as “official” without claiming falsehoods.

Publisher - I guess the difference is I am not sure how anyone can claim that Joseph Smith was speculating? Show me one of his quotes (or BY) where this would be the case.

The LDS leaders of today can claim it is not official teaching because none of the prophecies came to pass.

I do respect other people’s beliefs. However, if they are not based on church teachings, then it is actually their opinion. I respect opinions as well.

 

[lax16]

Maybe, it depends on which member of the Mormon church you ask, who they’re with, and what last Sunday’s lesson was about.

Yes, that is true!

Well, I am asking the Mormon posters here. This is official teaching on the matter. However, my interpretation of it is…ummmmm…wow.

Anyone care to answer?

 

[SirThomasMore]

It seems to be the pattern of the LDS Church to take their horrible teachings from earlier “prophets” and hide them, run from them, change them, whitewash them, and ignore them.

That is what happens when you base your church on false prophets and then try to appear mainstream. You are forced to run away from the very thing that made you different.

 

[Publisher]

If a person claims they believe in “X” but their church teaches “Y”…for us to claim that members of such and such a church believe “X” as a blanket statement is a falsehood…if we are to state what “Mormons” believe…then let’s do so…if past leaders “speculated” beliefs which are against “official” teaching, then we should not state that the church believes “X”, when in fact it does not. We should respect other beliefs…there are enough “distinctive” Mormon beliefs that are accurately represented as “official” without claiming falsehoods.

Publisher - I guess the difference is I am not sure how anyone can claim that Joseph Smith was speculating? Show me one of his quotes (or BY) where this would be the case.

The LDS leaders of today can claim it is not official teaching because none of the prophecies came to pass.

I do respect other people’s beliefs. However, if they are not based on church teachings, then it is actually their opinion. I respect opinions as well.

As do I…but it is wrong and deceitful to claim that “Mormons teach XYZ” based on quotes from their leadership that were never received by the whole church as truth and that were never incorporated into their scriptures or official church teachings.

I have no reference to quote that the statements of JS or BY were only speculation other than what the LDS themselves have said…since THEY should be able to define their stance on such quotes…and have…why then deny they are “speculations” and insist that they are “doctrine” when the LDS church as a whole reject Adam-God, Mary having sexual intercourse with God the Father to beget Jesus and other “beliefs” most Christians find objectionable?

If the LDS church does not believe such doctrine, why claim they do?

Again, Catholics don’t like it when a passage is pulled from a distinctive Catholic source which says something along the thought that “Mary is worshipped(adored).” I always smile at the response from Catholics…"We don’t worship Mary, the word “worship” we used really means “adore”, “venerate” not “worship” as defined in modern English…

Honesty concerning other faith traditions is important from my perspective…claiming “Mormons believe that Adam was really God.”…then go on to quote BY as proof…when the LDS church has stated “We do not believe Adam was God.” to me is wrong. BY may have actually said something like that…he was wrong…and the LDS church admits that…why claim otherwise?

 

[SirThomasMore]

As do I…but it is wrong and deceitful to claim that “Mormons teach XYZ” based on quotes from their leadership that were never received by the whole church as truth and that were never incorporated into their scriptures or official church teachings.

I have no reference to quote that the statements of JS or BY were only speculation other than what the LDS themselves have said…since THEY should be able to define their stance on such quotes…and have…why then deny they are “speculations” and insist that they are “doctrine” when the LDS church as a whole reject Adam-God, Mary having sexual intercourse with God the Father to beget Jesus and other “beliefs” most Christians find objectionable?

If the LDS church does not believe such doctrine, why claim they do?

Again, Catholics don’t like it when a passage is pulled from a distinctive Catholic source which says something along the thought that “Mary is worshipped(adored).” I always smile at the response from Catholics…"We don’t worship Mary, the word “worship” we used really means “adore”, “venerate” not “worship” as defined in modern English…

Honesty concerning other faith traditions is important from my perspective…claiming “Mormons believe that Adam was really God.”…then go on to quote BY as proof…when the LDS church has stated “We do not believe Adam was God.” to me is wrong. BY may have actually said something like that…he was wrong…and the LDS church admits that…why claim otherwise?

Nice try…but Catholics do not have prophets who claim to talk to God and then up with this heretical nonsense.

 

[Publisher]

Nice try…but Catholics do not have prophets who claim to talk to God and then up with this heretical nonsense.

Friend…“nice try” for…what? I made no “attempt” of anything other than state I do not believe dishonesty concerning what people believe to be living in Truth. If it is within the Catholic tradition to state falsehoods concerning what others believe as it assists with apoligetics…then I am not as well versed about Catholic thought and morals as I beleived I was…I do not believe stating falsehoods about others is a Catholic belief…but merely an oddity of some Catholics…and in this they certainly share with Protestants.

“Nice try”…??? Nice try for what?

 

[SteveVH]

As do I…but it is wrong and deceitful to claim that “Mormons teach XYZ” based on quotes from their leadership that were never received by the whole church as truth and that were never incorporated into their scriptures or official church teachings.

I have no reference to quote that the statements of JS or BY were only speculation other than what the LDS themselves have said…since THEY should be able to define their stance on such quotes…and have…why then deny they are “speculations” and insist that they are “doctrine” when the LDS church as a whole reject Adam-God, Mary having sexual intercourse with God the Father to beget Jesus and other “beliefs” most Christians find objectionable?

If the LDS church does not believe such doctrine, why claim they do?

Again, Catholics don’t like it when a passage is pulled from a distinctive Catholic source which says something along the thought that “Mary is worshipped(adored).” I always smile at the response from Catholics…"We don’t worship Mary, the word “worship” we used really means “adore”, “venerate” not “worship” as defined in modern English…

Honesty concerning other faith traditions is important from my perspective…claiming “Mormons believe that Adam was really God.”…then go on to quote BY as proof…when the LDS church has stated “We do not believe Adam was God.” to me is wrong. BY may have actually said something like that…he was wrong…and the LDS church admits that…why claim otherwise?

Publisher, the problem is that the people who said these things claim to be prophets. If a prophet speaks falsely, it is proof that he was not a prophet, according to Scripture. The claim that these things were said just as personal opinion is bogus. Read the statements as quoted in this thread and then tell me this was just some off-the-cuff remark.

As for Catholics “worshipping” Mary, think again. I will not deny that this has been said, even by clergy, but it was truly said using the meaning of the words at that time. Just as Kings and Queens were called “your worship”, it did not carry the same meaning as used today. It was a term of respect, not an attempt to equate the worship reserved only to God with the respect and honor given to Mary. Not only that, one could clearly determine the true Catholic position from any clergy member by simply asking the question, regardless of the meaning of certain words used at that time. It is not that we worshipped Mary at some point in time and then decided, years later, that we didn’t.

As far as the Mormon practice of denying teachings and prophecies from their founders, we’re only talking about 150 years ago or so. While some terminology may have changed during that time, that is not the argument of Mormons. They simply deny that the teaching has any bearing on them today. These were certainly doctrinal matters whether or not they wish to admit that today. In contrast, Catholic doctrine has never changed in 2000 years of its history.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, the problem is that the people who said these things claim to be prophets. If a prophet speaks falsely, it is proof that he was not a prophet, according to Scripture. The claim that these things were said just as personal opinion is bogus. Read the statements as quoted in this thread and then tell me this was just some off-the-cuff remark.

As for Catholics “worshipping” Mary, think again. I will not deny that this has been said, even by clergy, but it was truly said using the meaning of the words at that time. Just as Kings and Queens were called “your worship”, it did not carry the same meaning as used today. It was a term of respect, not an attempt to equate the worship reserved only to God with the respect and honor given to Mary. Not only that, one could clearly determine the true Catholic position from any clergy member by simply asking the question, regardless of the meaning of certain words used at that time. It is not that we worshipped Mary at some point in time and then decided, years later, that we didn’t.

As far as the Mormon practice of denying teachings and prophecies from their founders, we’re only talking about 150 years ago or so. While some terminology may have changed during that time, that is not the argument of Mormons. They simply deny that the teaching has any bearing on them today. These were certainly doctrinal matters whether or not they wish to admit that today. In contrast, Catholic doctrine has never changed in 2000 years of its history.

Friend, I have no problem with your understanding of the situation.

To say “Mormons believe XYZ” when they do not is deciet. It matters not what past leaders have said IF Mormons do not believe what past leaders stated. Do Mormons believe in the doctrine of Adam-God? No…but you sure hear/read statements from both Catholics and Protestants that “Mormons believe Adam was God.”…that simply and plainly is false.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Friend, I have no problem with your understanding of the situation.

To say “Mormons believe XYZ” when they do not is deciet. It matters not what past leaders have said IF Mormons do not believe what past leaders stated. Do Mormons believe in the doctrine of Adam-God? No…but you sure hear/read statements from both Catholics and Protestants that “Mormons believe Adam was God.”…that simply and plainly is false.

Most statements on that issue that I have read are not “Mormons believe Adam was God”, but instead are “Mormons were once taught that Adam was God, and that belief has been dropped”, or, “Brigham Young once taught, from the pulpit, that Adam was God”. It is quite clear that Mormons today do not believe that Adam is God.