Hello Cowboy Pete - When Joseph Smith declared that what everyone had understood about God was incorrect and that he was going to unveil the truth, it is then up to the LDS to explain his teachings about God.
If we were the Church of Joseph Smith, that would be true.
As I see it, like Moses before him (remember the water from the rock?), Joseph Smith got a bit too big for his britches towards the end of his life.
Joseph Smith said once that if he were to lead the people astray, that God would take him out of his place.
It’s possible that God did exactly that. As God did with Moses before him, after the rock incident.
To the extent that Joseph Smith’s teachings lead us to Christ, we follow them. To the extent that they don’t, we don’t.
Wouldn’t divine parents be plural?
Yes.
Isn’t that more than one God?
Nope. See John 17.
The following is an article from the Ensign (I have posted this before).
You think any church magazine to be scripture?
Few things are more crucial to the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) than the doctrines Joseph Smith taught. He spoke definitively and clearly on each of them, though his knowledge grew progressively. At times it came in leaps and bounds, as when he and Sidney Rigdon saw the Lord and the degrees of glory (see D&C 76); at other times, it came “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” (2 Ne. 28:30).
So far, so good.
The** doctrines **Joseph Smith taught do several things. They clarify scripture; they restore knowledge that had been revealed ages ago but had become lost or corrupted; they provide new knowledge; and they organize his many insights into a broad vision of eternity.
Not canonical, but sounds right.
Though most people who believe the Bible accept the idea of a Godhead composed of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith revealed an understanding of the Godhead that differed from the views found in the creeds of his day. The main Christian sects of the nineteenth century taught of “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons: nor dividing the Substance” and of “one only living and true God, … a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible.” 4 Although other churches and individuals held that the Father and the Son are separate entities, 5 Joseph Smith uniquely taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages, with the Father and the Son having bodies of “flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” and with the Holy Ghost being a “personage of Spirit.” (D&C 130:22.) 6
Yep, that’s official doctrine.
[blabla blah joseph smith supposedly said this or that etc. etc.]
Oh, hello, actual scripture and official proclamation:
10 Through the Prophet, we learn that we “are begotten sons and daughters unto God” and that Christ is the Firstborn. (D&C 76:24; see D&C 93:21–22; Heb. 12:7–9.) As God’s children, we may become gods ourselves through Christ’s atonement and the plan of salvation, being joint heirs of Christ of “all that [the] Father hath.” (D&C 84:38; see also Rom. 8:17; D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:19–21.) Along with these concepts is the concept of divine parents, including an exalted Mother who stands beside God the Father.
That’s all correct. You realize Heb = the book of Hebrews, from the Bible, right?
rebecca:
Oh shoot, I thought I was the answer to your prayers.
Don’t get fresh, dear; I’m married, and we don’t do
that anymore.
Paul:
including the “two-sticks” passage from Jeremiah
It definitely would be out of context if he pulled Ezekiel 33 out of the book of
Jeremiah, Paul.
Rebecca:
I won’t coddle your errors, if that is what you’re hoping for.
If you put the useful information at the top of the post, I promise to read all the insults that follow. Deal? Or is providing accurate information considered “coddling” in your neck of the desert?
]