Is Mormonism Pagan?

[amgid]

majick275:

Let’s see…When the entire 82nd Psalm is read in context and the 10th Chapter of John is read in context, I understand there to be a HUGE difference between “sons of God” and God. I also understand there to be a vast difference between Jesus and “sons of God”.

I can assure you that what you are saying here doesn’t make any sense to me at all, and I doubt if it does to anybody else either—unless he is someone who is of your own persuasion already. In your effort to avoid the obvious sense of the meaning you are making the whole thing a lot more complicated than it is. Nobody starting with a blank sheet would understand these passages in the sense in which you are trying to impose on it. Jesus says nothing about the “sons of God” bit, He quotes directly the “gods” bit. That is the part of the text that He is interested in, as far as His rebuttal against the Jews is concerned. He is saying, “Why do you accuse me of blasphemy for making myself equal with God, when your own scripture makes you a god!” That is all that He is saying. You are introducing all these other factors into it to confuse the issue.

As far as the “sons of God” bit is concerned, that is a different theological principle entirely. Yes, it is correct that the psalmist says “…Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” Meaning, of course, that by virtue of their divine Parentage, they have the potential to acquire divine status. That is quite correct. Being the “children of God” means that they have the potential to become gods themselves. That is what the Bible teaches, and that is what LDS doctrine teaches too.

While I respect your right to believe differently I think it a bit presumptious to state that all “right minded” poeple share your view.

I too respect your right to believe differently, and I am sure that there is not much I can say here that is likely to change your mind about that. But I don’t think that my statement was “presumptuous” at all. I think that the plain meaning of what Jesus was intending to convey from that quote is so obvious and self-evident to any reasonable minded person, that you would have to make a special effort, and perform some of unjustifiable mental gymnastics, to understand it as you want to do.

as to your quote from Exodus… Would you have us believe that at that point Moses had received his exaltation and was in fact deified? I think not.

No, that is not how I would understand it. I understand it in the plain and simple terms in which God has expressed it, and which I believe He wants me to understand it. God didn’t say to Moses, “I have already given you your exaltation in heaven.” He said, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.” That means that God gave to Moses a status that is divine in relation to Pharaoh, and to his entire nation. He gave him power over life and death. Moses sent thousands of Egyptians to their death at the flick of his rod. He drowned the entire Egyptian armies, including Pharaoh, in the Red sea at the flick of a rod. He almost destroyed the whole of Egypt with his plagues, all at a flick of a rod! That is a form of divinity, or divine status, which Moses enjoyed over Pharaoh and his entire land. That is what that scripture means. You conveniently ignore the fact that you object to the title of God being applied to any being other than the one supreme God, in any sense of the term, and consider it idolatry and blasphemy to do so. Well, sorry, but the scriptures don’t agree with you. God make Moses a god over Pharaoh and his land. That is what the Bible teaches.

God tells Moses that the pagan Pharoah now views Moses as a supernatural being due to the miracles that God performed through him. He also states that Aaron is Moses’ spokesman. The Lord is speaking in very simple analogies so that everyone understands the position of Moses, Aaron and Pharoah.

If that is what God wanted to say, He would have said it that way. He would have said, “I have made you to look like a supernatural being to Pharaoh, and Aaron will be your spokesman,” instead of saying, “I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh, and Aaron is thy prophet.” I prefer to understand God’s word in the plain terms in which they are expressed, instead of putting words in God’s mouth which He never intended to express.

(Continued in the next post …)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post …)

read verse 2:

Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

verses 5 and 6 remind us who IS God:

And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, so did they.

The chapter goes on to show God performing miracles through Moses, he tells Moses what to speak and everything goes according to the will of the Lord.

Where in that chapter did you see Aaron prophesying? or Moses being a literal God?

Exodus is a pretty clear about there only being one God ever.

This part of your post is irrelevant to the discussion. I never said that when God told Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,” that He Himself is now going to take a back seat, or that Moses’ divine status relative to Pharaoh makes the Supreme divine irrelevant. The scripture doesn’t say that, neither did I. The supreme God still remains in overall command, while still making Moses a “junior god” (if you like) over Pharaoh.

I don’t see where I twisted anything. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I had said that in relation to your interpretation of Psalm 82:6 and John 10:30-36; and I think that I have already explained the reasons.

While you are thinking on those, here are some more nice scriptures for you to consider:

For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: (Deuteronomy 10:17.)

The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,) (Joshua 22:22.)

O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. (Psalms 136:2.)

The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. (Daniel 2:47.)

Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; (1 Timothy 6:15.)

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings … Revelation 17:14.)
What is your take on these?

PS: I have been obliged to split this post into two because the board does not allow posts longer than 5000 characters long—which I find too restrictive. I hope the policy will be changed.

amgid

 

[majick275]

My take is that this all comes down to “the sons of God” part. (or at least your various definitions of Gods, Lords, etc. that were used in your various references) There is a difference between the level of divinity that “we” as sons of God are able to attain and the actual complete “Godliness” that exists only in the actual Godhead. (father, son, holy spirit)

I see the passages that you reference as all proving this. God is in all of these scriptures teaching the people in terms that they can understand that only HE is God. There are aspects of the divine that are shared with the faithful, they are intended for a greatness beyond human understanding. Sometimes those whom the Lord sends seems as Gods to the heathen. But there is only one God.

Satan has always tried to tempt folks that they can be “as the Gods”. It must be heady feeling to think that someday one will be “The Lord thy God” to worlds without end. Pride has always been Satans favored tool.

*I too respect your right to believe differently, and I am sure that there is not much I can say here that is likely to change your mind about that. But I don’t think that my statement was “presumptuous” at all. I think that the plain meaning of what Jesus was intending to convey from that quote is so obvious and self-evident to any reasonable minded person, that you would have to make a special effort, and perform some of unjustifiable mental gymnastics, to understand it as you want to do.
*

Now here you go again arrogantly touting an ethnocentric viewpoint as obvious fact. To the non-LDS mind it is your doctrine of eternal progression that requires cognitive dissonance. Only if you already embrace that paradigm do these scriptures seem to “obviously” convey your percieved meaning.Inflammatory rhetoric like “any reasonable person” or “all right minded” serves no useful purpose here. Try reading it from the point of view that there can be no eternal progression as you understand it, that there has always been and only will be forever one God. From that paradigm the meaning seems very different.

I still think that you are being far too dismissive about Jesus pointing out his special status as the ONE whom God has sanctified and sent. I see a clear distinction between God the son and any “Gods” as in “sons of God” mentioned anywhere in scripture.

I have a question for you though (since you seem to be a believer in the original Joseph Smith/Brigham Young doctrine of eternal progression)

Please explain what your “prophet” meant when he said (in relation to this doctrine)

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”

Or in this interview:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.

I just want to be sure of your actual point of view as we see here on this forum RLDS, FLDS and various other flavors of “Mormons” who sometimes have slightly different understandings of doctrine.

 

[MEP]

Think of Smith’s revelation as a process instead of a result.

First, he comes up with the idea of a Godhead, but unwittingly, this causes problems. He has committed the Arian heresy and made Jesus a lesser creature than the Father. Jesus isn’t Lord anymore, he is the creation of the Father and something different from the Father. This isn’t what JS actually believes or what he wants to teach so he has to find a way to fix this problem without overwriting earlier doctrine. Arius couldn’t find a way to reconcile his teaching of Christ as a creation of the Father and the belief that Jesus is Lord. The two are incompatible, and he couldn’t find a way to fix that. But Joseph Smith found a way.

Eternal progression. Now Jesus is Lord again. The contradictions of the Godhead are erased when all humanity has the potential to become something greater, perhaps even as great as God. JS sighs in relief and thinks his problem is solved.

Before he dies, people start to point out to him that eternal progression opens up the possibility of a plurality of gods. JS doesn’t believe in a plurality of gods, but he doesn’t know how to refute this just yet. Before he gets a chance to address the problems brought up by eternal progression, he dies.

No other prophet ever meaningfully figures out how to solve this problem. They don’t really teach that there is a pluarality of gods, but the doctrine of eternal progression implicitly states that there is a plurality of gods. Most Mormons don’t believe in a plurality of gods, but they do know something about eternal progression. They just don’t realize that this creates an inescapable contradiction in their faith.

Maybe there is a way to solve this problem. Just as Arius couldn’t find a way to reconcile his heresy with his beliefs but someone else could, maybe someone will figure out a way to reconcile eternal progression with the existence of a single God. But so far, no Mormon prophet has, and most of them would prefer to just not talk about it.

I’m sorry if the above suggestions offend anyone. I’m really not trying to bash LDS doctrine, but eternal progression really does imply a plurality of gods. Most LDS may not believe in that, but that doesn’t mean that the doctrine doesn’t still imply it. If you don’t believe in a plurality of gods but you do believe in eternal progression, then there is either a piece of the puzzle missing or there is a contradiction in your faith. I don’t know which it is, but it’s one of those two possibilities.

 

[majick275]

I would submit to you that Brigham Young and his contemporaries did in fact teach a plurality of Gods but were sufficently henotheistic to get by with it.(having everyone dependent on church leadership in a remote “country” helps too)

 

[PaulDupre]

MEP:

I’m sorry if the above suggestions offend anyone. I’m really not trying to bash LDS doctrine, but eternal progression really does imply a plurality of gods. Most LDS may not believe in that, but that doesn’t mean that the doctrine doesn’t still imply it. If you don’t believe in a plurality of gods but you do believe in eternal progression, then there is either a piece of the puzzle missing or there is a contradiction in your faith. I don’t know which it is, but it’s one of those two possibilities.

Joseph Smith, before his death, did explicitly teach the plurality of gods. See Joseph Smith’s Sermon on the Plurality of Gods (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479), or the King Follet Discourse, as examples of his later teachings.

Most LDS that I have ever known take for granted the plurality of gods, but only worship their own Heavenly Father. They also are working to become gods and goddesses themselves after death. When I was LDS during the 70’s and 80’s, this was taught in every Sunday School manual, EQ manual and FHE manual. They seem to be trying to distance themselves from these teachings now (at least in public).

Then there are increasing numbers of Mormons (a few of whom frequent this forum) who seem to know almost nothing of LDS history and doctrine.

God bless,
Paul

 

[MEP]

PaulDupre:

Then there are increasing numbers of Mormons (a few of whom frequent this forum) who seem to know almost nothing of LDS history and doctrine.

I understand how that feels. I’ve met so many lapsed Catholics who left the church because of some belief that the Catholic church doesn’t actually teach. It’s frustrating sometimes to see people within your own church grossly misunderstand their own religion. I honestly wish I had a solution for both of us here.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Now here you go again arrogantly touting an ethnocentric viewpoint as obvious fact. To the non-LDS mind it is your doctrine of eternal progression that requires cognitive dissonance. Only if you already embrace that paradigm do these scriptures seem to “obviously” convey your percieved meaning. Inflammatory rhetoric like “any reasonable person” or “all right minded” serves no useful purpose here.

Interesting observation. I have a question for you. In the very first post you addressed to me in this thread, you began as follows: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures…” I wonder, do you think that that might be considered “arrogant,” “inflammatory rhetoric” by some? Or do you think that it is alright for you to address other people in such tones, but they are not allowed to respond to you in kind?

On the subject of the scriptural passages we have been discussing, relating to the plurality of gods, I am afraid you are just going to have to take my word for it that your arguments and analysis of these scriptural passages simply does not make any sense to me. And if you want my honest opinion, I don’t think would make sense to anybody else either. Now if you consider that statement to be inflammatory, offensive, or arrogant, then I apologize. I cannot express it any better than that. But this is what I genuinely believe.

I have a question for you though (since you seem to be a believer in the original Joseph Smith/Brigham Young doctrine of eternal progression)

As I have already stated in another post, I don’t know what “eternal progression” is, or what it means. It is not a concept that is found in LDS scripture, and it is not true LDS doctrine.

Please explain what your “prophet” meant when he said (in relation to this doctrine)

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”

I believe he meant to say that the doctrine that God was once a man like us, and then He progressed to divinity or Godhood, is not true LDS doctrine, and I agree with him on that. It is not found in LDS scripture, the standard works. I believe he is also saying that this is a principle that not much about it has been revealed, and therefore pointless to speculate about it; and I quite agree.

Or in this interview:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else.

The same as above. He is expressing the same sentiment as in the previous quote. The idea that God was once a man, and them progressed to become God, is not true LDS doctrine, and it is supported by LDS scripture.

I just want to be sure of your actual point of view as we see here on this forum RLDS, FLDS and various other flavors of “Mormons” who sometimes have slightly different understandings of doctrine.

I am true blue LDS. I recognize Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet, seer, and revelator. My point of view is the LDS point of view—though I am not speaking “officially” on behalf of the LDS Church, you understand.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid, I can’t believe that you are now claiming that you don’t know what eternal pogression is since anyone can got the LDS website and find a that exact term as a topic in MANY lesson manuals currently in use. Let’s see what some of the LDS websites asy on this:

This is from the BYU website:

“For Latter-day Saints, the term “godhood” denotes a state in which one has all the divine attributes of God and participates in his eternal work. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all resurrected and perfected mortals become gods…Latter-day Saints believe that God achieved his exalted rank by progressing much as man must progress and that God is a perfected and exalted man.”

(abstracted from K. Codell Carter, “Godhood” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:553–55, as cited at the BYU FAQ website, ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=178 )

This from the encyclopedia of Mormonism:
Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image (Genesis 1:26)” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “God”).

Before I move into the “meat” I would ask you to consider this from the BYU website:

“Although “scripture” usually denotes written documents, in LDS sources it is also defined as “whatsoever [God’s representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4)” (ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=100

Now having seen that, let’s look at this King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith’s:

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to enquire after God; for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of men.God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man . . … . .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… . . 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; and I will show it from the Bible.Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 304-306, see also, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 345-347).

and a little more from same source:

“… they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before… My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

 

[majick275]

Continued)

Now you can say that this isn’t taught now but the LDS lesson manual manual Gospel Principles (1992, p.9) says:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!..It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible…" (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

And then since you chose to place your faith in the President of your church, Gordon B. Hinkley :

On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)

 

[majick275]

amgid:

majick275:

Interesting observation. I have a question for you. In the very first post you addressed to me in this thread, you began as follows: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures…” I wonder, do you think that that might be considered “arrogant,” “inflammatory rhetoric” by some? Or do you think that it is alright for you to address other people in such tones, but they are not allowed to respond to you in kind?

Let me explain, it’s okay for you to tell me that you think my interpretation of scripture is incorrect. (as I did you). What I find “presumptuous” are sweeping generalizations indicating that I (or a tiny minority like me) are the only ones who could possibly see things that way. The implication that your interpretions, beliefs, etc,. are the “obviously” true ones because logic dictates that or all “right minded” agree has you speaking for a mjority that you have no right to claim.

Challenging my knowledge or intrpretation of scripture is not wrong, challenging my ability to understand due to my lack of intelligence or mental stability is iniappropriate.

On the subject of the scriptural passages we have been discussing, relating to the plurality of gods, I am afraid you are just going to have to take my word for it that your arguments and analysis of these scriptural passages simply does not make any sense to me. And if you want my honest opinion, I don’t think would make sense to anybody else either. Now if you consider that statement to be inflammatory, offensive, or arrogant, then I apologize. I cannot express it any better than that. But this is what I genuinely believe.

Now here is a good example of you communicating your beliefs in a polite, respectful manner. This is a good comment. (IMO)

As I have already stated in another post, I don’t know what “eternal progression” is, or what it means.** It is not a concept that is found in LDS scripture**

, and it is not true LDS doctrine.

Uh…I disagree. (tempted to use a stronger term but that would be wrong) please see my other post as providing the evidence for my conclusion.

I believe he meant to say that the doctrine that God was once a man like us, and then He progressed to divinity or Godhood, is not true LDS doctrine, and I agree with him on that. It is not found in LDS scripture, the standard works. I believe he is also saying that this is a principle that not much about it has been revealed, and therefore pointless to speculate about it; and I quite agree.

The same as above. He is expressing the same sentiment as in the previous quote. The idea that God was once a man, and them progressed to become God, is not true LDS doctrine, and it is supported by LDS scripture.

I am true blue LDS. I recognize Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet, seer, and revelator. My point of view is the LDS point of view—though I am not speaking “officially” on behalf of the LDS Church, you understand.

amgid

So please reconcile this with the words of GBH that I posted here from his 1994 talk in General conference.

i also would refer you to Ezra T. Bensons talk on 26 Feb 1980 in which he speaks about the prophet, scripture and what we need to follow. (he appears to claim that current prophet is most important, over standard works and previous prophets) This seems “Orwellian” to me.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

amgid, I can’t believe that you are now claiming that you don’t know what eternal pogression is since anyone can got the LDS website and find a that exact term as a topic in MANY lesson manuals currently in use. Let’s see what some of the LDS websites asy on this:

This is from the BYU website:

Snip/…

This from the encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Snip/…

Now having seen that, let’s look at this King Follett discourse of Joseph Smith’s:

Snip/…

and a little more from same source:

Snip/…

Now you can say that this isn’t taught now but the LDS lesson manual manual Gospel Principles (1992, p.9) says:

Snip/…

In response to all of these, I refer you to the quotes which I had given from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, as well as some references to the D&C, in the thread entitled “When Did the “Mormon Jesus” Become Divine?” (which you may have missed, since you did not reply to it). As I have repeated several times already, I extract my LDS doctrine directly out of LDS scripture—i.e. the standard works. That is the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine that I recognize, and it is also what our leaders counsel us to do. You can quote me from such extraneous sources until doomsday; it won’t cut any ice with me. I do not recognize them as the final source of LDS theology and doctrine.—And by the way, I did not notice the phrase “eternal progression” occurring in any of the quotes you had given me. Believe it or not, I still don’t know what “eternal progression” means. It is not an expression found in LDS scripture, I haven’t a clue what it is supposed to mean!

And then since you chose to place your faith in the President of your church, Gordon B. Hinkley :

Snip/…

So please reconcile this with the words of GBH that I posted here from his 1994 talk in General conference.

I reconcile it by coming to the conclusion that President Hinckley had initially accepted that doctrine (as many people in the Church had, and still do), but later on a greater understanding or insight into the standard works led him to the realization that it couldn’t be correct. Well, if he had paid closer attention to the standard works, he would have come to that realization a lot sooner, as I did!

i also would refer you to Ezra T. Bensons talk on 26 Feb 1980 in which he speaks about the prophet, scripture and what we need to follow. (he appears to claim that current prophet is most important, over standard works and previous prophets) This seems “Orwellian” to me.

The current prophet is more important in the sense that he is in a position to reveal the word of the Lord to us, in our generation. What he is saying is that you don’t reject the counsel of the living prophet over a dead one, even if there might appear to be a conflict between the two. But that does not mean that the current prophet is infallible, or that he is incapable of ever making a mistake in doctrine. Those are two different things.

(Continued in next post…)

angid

 

[amgid]

(continued from previous post…)

Before I move into the “meat” I would ask you to consider this from the BYU website:

“Although “scripture” usually denotes written documents, in LDS sources it is also defined as “whatsoever [God’s representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:2–4)” (ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=100

This is the “meatiest” bit you have given so far! It is quite correct. D&C 68:3-4 makes this statement:

And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
Note first the proviso: “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost”. Secondly, the main mistake that you are making here is that you are confusing “scripture” with “new doctrine”. All scripture is not new doctrine. 90% of the Bible is not new doctrine, but all of it is scripture. Did you listen to the last LDS General Conference? If you didn’t, I recommend you to do so. Everything that was said in that conference was inspired by the Holy Ghost, therefore it was scripture. It was the will of the Lord, the mind of the Lord, the word of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. But it wasn’t new doctrine. In fact, 99% of what the prophets of the Lord have said throughout the abes has not been new doctrine. It has been exhortation to repent, believe in God, exercise faith, and keep His commandments. What we are discussing here is new doctrine. Nobody has the right to introduce new doctrine into the Church just willy-nilly. It has to follow a certain procedure, as outlined in the quote form Harold B. Lee which I gave in the other thread. The fundamental doctrines, beliefs, and practices of the Church are eternally fixed and ensconced in the standard works of the Church. They cannot be added to, taken away from, or changed at the whim or fancy of anyone, not even the prophet. If the Lord wants to reveal a new doctrine, ordinance, or practice to the Church, He will do so through the current prophet, following a set procedure, as outlined in the quote from Harold B. Lee which I had given. That is what is at issue here, not whether something is “scripture or not”.

amgid

 

[majick275]

what I get from these two posts is that :

Scripture can be overwritten as long as the correc process is used, doctrine can be changed under the same restrictions, the current prophet is more important than the old ones but is still fallible (even in matters of doctrine), Seeming changes,contradicitons,etc. should be ignored nad one should press on by reading the “current version” of scriptures only, using on ly the “current practices” in keeping the commandments and one should place their faith in the leadership of the current prophet trusting the Lord to eventually correct his mistakes.

That is contrary to my own personal beliefs.

The fundamental doctrines, beliefs, and practices of the Church are eternally fixed and ensconced in the standard works of the Church. They cannot be added to, taken away from, or changed at the whim or fancy of anyone, not even the prophet.

and yet within the standard works themselves they appear to be. Your professed reasoning on this is that the correct process was followed in those cases…so we are back to flexible doctrine that changes when the prophet says so because their is process in place by which he can do that.

Perhaps you can tell GBH about his errors in doctrine. (notice he never denied the doctrine of etrnal progression, he just said he didn’t if it was taught…curious that a “prophet” who leads the church wouldn’t know what was taught…)

And by the way, I did not notice the phrase “eternal progression” occurring in any of the quotes you had given me. Believe it or not, I still don’t know what “eternal progression” means. It is not an expression found in LDS scripture, I haven’t a clue what it is supposed to mean! do you really expect me to beleive this? tell you what, you go to the LDS website and enter that term into the search engine. See how many lesson manuals use that EXACT term as a teaching topic? see all of the conference talks speaking to that EXACT topic? Do you really want to retreat into “sola scriptura” as the only binding LDS doctrine? that would undermine the entire existence of your church. (especially since your scriptures change periodically, not to mention the vital elements, essential to salvation that are NOT in your “standard works” such as teh Temple ordinance)

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

I believe he meant to say that the doctrine that God was once a man like us, and then He progressed to divinity or Godhood, is not true LDS doctrine, and I agree with him on that. It is not found in LDS scripture, the standard works. I believe he is also saying that this is a principle that not much about it has been revealed, and therefore pointless to speculate about it; and I quite agree.

The same as above. He is expressing the same sentiment as in the previous quote. The idea that God was once a man, and them progressed to become God, is not true LDS doctrine, and it is supported by LDS scripture.

amgid

Perhaps you’d better read Gospel Principles. It’s a handbook published by the LDS Church to teach new members about their faith. Here’s a link if you don’t have a copy:
lds.org/library/display/…-1-13-1,00.html

This is from the last chapter:
This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

The Doctrine and Covenants states, "God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones. Inside his tangible body is an eternal spirit." (130:22)

I know you don’t personally believe this but you can’t make the claim that:
A. It’s not a widely held belief among most LDS…it is, almost all LDS I know believe it, and I know a lot of LDS.
B. The LDS Church doesn’t teach it. “Gospel Principles” is published by the LDS Church and they think highly enough of it to post it on their website.

You are at odds with the teachings of your own church and don’t know it.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

what I get from these two posts is that :

Scripture can be overwritten as long as the correct process is used, doctrine can be changed under the same restrictions, the current prophet is more important than the old ones but is still fallible (even in matters of doctrine),

No! What you get from it is that the LDS Church is true because it is led by true prophets and Apostles who are able to lead it by direct revelation from God, as they did in ancient times. Another thing that you get from it is that the Catholic Church is not true because it is not led by revelation through prophets and Apostles, as God’s ancient church used to be.

Seeming changes, contradictions, etc. should be ignored and one should press on by reading the “current version” of scriptures only, using only the “current practices” in keeping the commandments and one should place their faith in the leadership of the current prophet trusting the Lord to eventually correct his mistakes.

I don’t know what you are talking about here.

That is contrary to my own personal beliefs.

Well, that is understandable, because your personal beliefs are derived from an apostate religion which apostatized many centuries ago as it is prophesied in the Bible that it should, and therefore they are not correct.

and yet within the standard works themselves they appear to be. Your professed reasoning on this is that the correct process was followed in those cases…so we are back to flexible doctrine that changes when the prophet says so because their is process in place by which he can do that.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Perhaps you can tell GBH about his errors in doctrine. (notice he never denied the doctrine of etrnal progression, he just said he didn’t if it was taught…curious that a “prophet” who leads the church wouldn’t know what was taught…)

GBH is a mighty prophet of the Almighty God, and I wouldn’t presume to tell him anything.

amgid

 

[Topher]

amgid:

Well, that is understandable, because your personal beliefs are derived from an apostate religion which apostatized many centuries ago as it is prophesied in the Bible that it should, and therefore they are not correct.

The Church could not have gone into apostacy because the bible calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth and christ promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Your new mormon religion, is nothing but a novelty and will, with all transeint things, one day disappear from the face of the earth. The bible promises that the Faith was once and for all delievered unto the saints. That alone discredits your religion because you claim that the faith had to be redelivered to Joseph Smith, the arch-heretic.Only the Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Christ and his Apostles.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

Perhaps you’d better read Gospel Principles. It’s a handbook published by the LDS Church to teach new members about their faith. Here’s a link if you don’t have a copy:
lds.org/library/display/…-1-13-1,00.html

This is from the last chapter:
This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

As I said before, I derive LDS doctrine from LDS scripture. That is the only authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine that I recognize.

The Doctrine and Covenants states, “God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones. Inside his tangible body is an eternal spirit.” (130:22)

You have misquoted that scripture. The correct reading of that verse is: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” You can read it in context here:

scriptures.lds.org/dc/130/22#22

And yes, we so accept that the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” but that is a different thing from saying that He was born on an earth as a mortal, and then He became God! That doctrine is not in LDS scripture. How the Father acquired His tangible body of flesh and bones is a moot point. The truth is that we don’t know, and it is futile to speculate about it.

I know you don’t personally believe this but you can’t make the claim that:
A. It’s not a widely held belief among most LDS…it is, almost all LDS I know believe it, and I know a lot of LDS.

Yes! I have to agree with you on that one. It is a widespread belief in the LDS Church.

B. The LDS Church doesn’t teach it. “Gospel Principles” is published by the LDS Church and they think highly enough of it to post it on their website.

Well, I agree that it has been a widespread belief among the LDS, and probably still is. It was President Gordon B. Hinckley that said we no longer teach or emphasize it. By that I believe he meant that it is no longer widely taught or advocated at the pulpit by the general leadership of the Church, and that is true. If you read the general conference talks of the Church during the past few years or more, you will find that it is hardly ever mentioned. As for the published literature of the Church, that will take a little time to be corrected and updated, and I believe it eventually will be.

You are at odds with the teachings of your own church and don’t know it.

I don’t think so! I believe I am in agreement with the Gordon B. Hinckley and with the general readership of the Church.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

As I said before, I derive LDS doctrine from LDS scripture. That is the only authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine that I recognize.

So you DON’T believe in the doctrinal authority of your prophet?

You have misquoted that scripture. The correct reading of that verse is: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” You can read it in context here:

scriptures.lds.org/dc/130/22#22

Ah yes, you have once again “changed” the scriptures. Are you even aware of the MANY revisions your scriptures have gone through?

And yes, we so accept that the Father has “a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” but that is a different thing from saying that He was born on an earth as a mortal, and then He became God! That doctrine is not in LDS scripture. How the Father acquired His tangible body of flesh and bones is a moot point. The truth is that we don’t know, and it is futile to speculate about it.

It is NOT a moot point it goes to the very nature of God. It is essential to know according to more than one of your prophets. But then you don’t recognize the doctrinal authority of your prophets unless their words are “canonized”.

Yes! I have to agree with you on that one. It is a widespread belief in the LDS Church.

Well, I agree that it has been a widespread belief among the LDS, and probably still is. It was President Gordon B. Hinckley that said we no longer teach or emphasize it. By that I believe he meant that it is no longer widely taught or advocated at the pulpit by the general leadership of the Church, and that is true. If you read the general conference talks of the Church during the past few years or more, you will find that it is hardly ever mentioned. As for the published literature of the Church, that will take a little time to be corrected and updated, and I believe it eventually will be.

Here is an outright lie. President Hinckley NEVER said that you no longer teach or emphasize it. He said he didn’t know. Funny that he doesn’t what doctrine is taught in the church that he presides over.

I don’t think so! I believe I am in agreement with the Gordon B. Hinckley and with the general readership of the Church.

You had earlier sais that his 1994 conference talk was in error and that he should have read his scriptures so that he would kow that.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

No! What you get from it is that the LDS Church is true because it is led by true prophets and Apostles who are able to lead it by direct revelation from God, as they did in ancient times. Another thing that you get from it is that the Catholic Church is not true because it is not led by revelation through prophets and Apostles, as God’s ancient church used to be.

This is certainly NOT the correct place for you to be preaching that the Catholic church is apostate. If you want to “bash” got to utlm or saints alive, if you want to preach to potential converts then go out on splits, if you want to be an apologist then got to jefflindsay or FAIR or FARMS, but if you all you are going to do is “bear your testimony” and attack Catholics then you need to leave.

I don’t know what you are talking about here.

An awful lot of ignorance for someone who “KNOWS” their church is true.

Well, that is understandable, because your personal beliefs are derived from an apostate religion which apostatized many centuries ago as it is prophesied in the Bible that it should, and therefore they are not correct.

What a vitriolic personal attack. perhaps you should really read the bible and see of the false prophets in the last days who would revel in adultery. (like the notorious womanizer Joseph Smith) see 2Peter

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Sure you do you just chose to avoid it.

GBH is a mighty prophet of the Almighty God, and I wouldn’t presume to tell him anything.

Yet you did. So mighty that he made Mark Hoffman very wealthy and doesn’t know what is taught oe emphasized in the LDS church.

amgid