LDS: Alpha and Omega, the nature of God.

[mwok]

I don’t think they know – it’s all speculation. Some people say that God had a Father and Mother. Others won’t go that far. I don’t believe there is an official teaching on it.

So, could they then define it as a “Mystery of Faith”?

 

[BartBurk]

So, could they then define it as a “Mystery of Faith”?

You’d have to ask one of them about that!

 

[BartBurk]

So, could they then define it as a “Mystery of Faith”?

I found this which was interesting regarding this topic:

bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/27/god-once-was/

This was published in the Improvement Era, the publication prior to the Ensign. Joseph Fielding Smith makes it clear the Father has a Father theory wasn’t something he was comfortable getting into. And if Joseph Fielding Smith had a belief he wasn’t shy normally about giving it out.

Question: “Will you kindly explain these two expressions, ‘We know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting,’ and ‘As man is, God was; as God is man may become.’ “

Answer: “Everlasting to everlasting” means from the eternity past to the eternity future as far as man’s understanding is concerned, from the pre-existence through the temporal (mortal) life unto the eternity following the resurrection. The Savior said:

. . . The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things so ever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like wise. (John 5:19.)

From this remark we gather that the Son was doing what the Father had done before him. However, so far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom. So we will deal with this subject in relation to the Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I found this which was interesting regarding this topic:

bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/27/god-once-was/

This was published in the Improvement Era, the publication prior to the Ensign. Joseph Fielding Smith makes it clear the Father has a Father theory wasn’t something he was comfortable getting into. And if Joseph Fielding Smith had a belief he wasn’t shy normally about giving it out.

You’re right – if anything, he had a tendency to declare things as doctrine which the other Brethren did not agree on. This statement is uncharacteristically reserved:

From this remark **we gather **that the Son was doing what the Father had done before him.

In other words, it’s an inference.

IMO not a good inference, since Jesus statement that he’d done nothing that he hadn’t seen the father do, occurred prior to the crucifixion.

 

[BartBurk]

You’re right – if anything, he had a tendency to declare things as doctrine which the other Brethren did not agree on. This statement is uncharacteristically reserved:

In other words, it’s an inference.

IMO not a good inference, since Jesus statement that he’d done nothing that he hadn’t seen the father do, occurred prior to the crucifixion.

This basically shows that going all the way back to the 1950s Mormon leaders were hesitant to make categorical statements on Mormon doctrine which they couldn’t back up with scripture. They weren’t willing to simply take the King Follet sermon or the Temple Grove sermon at face value if it contradicted scripture. I showed on another thread that early 20th century Mormon leaders were hesitant about even having King Follet published because they had questions about its teachings. In the past I’ve been guilty of accepting the more extreme statements by Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders as settled doctrine when it appears to me now that such statements were anything but settled doctrine. I will be careful in the future about making blanket statements about what the LDS Church teaches unless it comes directly out of their standard works.

 

[lax16]

I looked at the article more closely. It never says that God the Father had a Father. It says that God obtained a body like us and lived on a world like us. Nobody is arguing against the notion that LDS believe that God the Father has a body. And again I would have to state that most LDS don’t know enough about the doctrine of the Trinity to be able to discuss it intelligently.

Yes, that is true. However, Joseph Smith did say:

“If Abraham reasoned thus–If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” 5

This is maybe not popular or recognized now but JS did say it and did refer to it as doctrine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This basically shows that going all the way back to the 1950s Mormon leaders were hesitant to make categorical statements on Mormon doctrine which they couldn’t back up with scripture. They weren’t willing to simply take the King Follet sermon or the Temple Grove sermon at face value if it contradicted scripture. I showed on another thread that early 20th century Mormon leaders were hesitant about even having King Follet published because they had questions about its teachings. In the past I’ve been guilty of accepting the more extreme statements by Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders as settled doctrine when it appears to me now that such statements were anything but settled doctrine. I will be careful in the future about making blanket statements about what the LDS Church teaches unless it comes directly out of their standard works.

Mormonism is not and has never been sola scriptura.

 

[BartBurk]

Yes, that is true. However, Joseph Smith did say:

“If Abraham reasoned thus–If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” 5

This is maybe not popular or recognized now but JS did say it and did refer to it as doctrine.

I looked up a little about that talk which was given in the Temple Grove a couple of weeks before Joseph was killed. The scribe was Thomas Bullock and the talk was given in a rainstorm. According to Bullock Joseph quoted from Revelation 1:6 which states: "“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father’ to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” According to Bullock Joseph used this scripture to prove that God had a Father. Now if Bullock’s transcription is correct Joseph totally blew that verse which was specifically speaking about God being Jesus’ Father, not God the Father having a Father. Upon that point alone any LDS would be free to disregard the entire talk. If Bullock’s translation is true the entire sermon is based upon a false premise from the start. Did Bullock get the talk right or not? Who knows, but it is clear the LDS have not canonized the sermon because it is unreliable.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yes, that is true. However, Joseph Smith did say:

“If Abraham reasoned thus–If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” 5

This is maybe not popular or recognized now but JS did say it and did refer to it as doctrine.

It does not follow that it’s a correct doctrine, an accurate doctrine, an “orthodox” doctrine, or a canonical doctrine.

 

[BartBurk]

It does not follow that it’s a correct doctrine, an accurate doctrine, an “orthodox” doctrine, or a canonical doctrine.

And I would have to admit that I don’t remember this talk being quoted from very much in the past except maybe in my BYU religion classes back in the early 1970s. The God was a man stuff was pretty common, but this one wasn’t touched upon that much.

 

[Outspoken]

You assume that we’re as obsessed with you as you are with us.

I think you’re just afraid that you might actually start to see the truth and realize that JS was wrong about everything he claimed to be true, if you actually read it all in context.

I don’t have to assume anything (my favorite episode of the to 'assume’never). I know that the only reason you read anything about the Catholic Faith is either to claim that we believe ‘the same things’, or so you can find stuff to throw in our faces on this forum (and elsewhere) that ‘proves’ JS was right about the ‘great apostasy’. We’re not talking about rocket science, here.

 

[soren1]

It does not follow that it’s a correct doctrine, an accurate doctrine, an “orthodox” doctrine, or a canonical doctrine.

What standard do you use to define a canonical doctrine?

 

[CopticChristian]

What standard do you use to define a canonical doctrine?

Here is what I surmise from reading all of these posts.

Mormons see themselves as fallible and all doctrines can be fallible. Their scripture to include KJB, Pearl of great price, book of mormon and D & C are not fallible.

Is this correct?

 

[soren1]

Here is what I surmise from reading all of these posts.

Mormons see themselves as fallible and all doctrines can be fallible. Their scripture to include KJB, Pearl of great price, book of mormon and D & C are not fallible.

Is this correct?

Actually, I was not asking what the Mormon consensus is, but what Cowboy Pete’s personal position is. Since he talks like he’s done his homework and emphasizes the developmental condition of LDS teaching, he might have some distinct nuances in his view that we would need to know about before discussing.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is amazing some people can deny history, consistency, not be satisfied with the Living Word of Christ, the sacraments and having their life centered on Christ, but prefer instead to base their faith historically speaking. one of recent times, of one, sole controversial man…spectacles, a peep hat, a lost tribe in America…Egyptian scrolls… justify ‘lying for the Lord’, justify illicit baptisms of the dead…

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yes, that is true. However, Joseph Smith did say:

“If Abraham reasoned thus–If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.” 5

This is maybe not popular or recognized now but JS did say it and did refer to it as doctrine.

If the Follett transcript is accurate, then yes, he did. But JS claimed to derive that belief from the Bible, not from prophetic revelation for the church. So it’s up to you and I to read the Bible and determine whether the interpretation is sound doctrine. The prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.

---

Thank you for the clarifying question, Soren1.
A canonical doctrine, according to D&C 50, has been approved unanimously by the First Presidency, and by the Quorum of the Twelve, and has been submitted and approved to the general body of the church through the process we call “common consent.”

For an actual canonical doctrine, I’d also expect encoding into written scriptural form. I am only aware of one item that has gone through all of the section 50 process, and not been codified into LDS scripture, and that’s the church policy making the Word of Wisdom mandatory, and adding beer to its list of prohibitions. And that seems more like a policy than a doctrine anyway.