P
Peter_John
Guest
I would love to know who told you that. Catholicism teaches that we share in the nature of God’s existence, not that we become a God. We are resurrected with a body the nature of jesus’ body, but we do not and cannot become God, we can only share in the nature of God’s existence.
The LDS teaching that we would become God’s of our own planet I agree was based in traditional interpretation of the doctrine of Eternal Progression. I expect there is some reference to it on the Journal of Discourses, a multi volume set of Brigham Young’s teachings over 30 years thast he led the Church, which are so broad they include some non-doctrinal specualtion. Note that Brigham Young did not see it that way.
The late LDS Bruce R. McConkie has been quoted by a grandson of the late President Ezra Taft Benson as having affirmed that Brigham Young was wrong to have postulated an “Adam-God” doctrine: “We have no God but Adam.” McConkie also affirmedto the same person that he personally was never wrong about anything, though his assertion that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil mentioned in the Book of Mormon never surprised the first edition of “Mormon Doctrine”.
Among other things the Church used to formally
I would like to say that I know what you feel about being a Mormon, but I can’t since I was born into it and not a convert. I do know how I felt about being a Mormon, and beleive me when I say I despite trying to believe other things, I kept coming back to it. I never joined any other Church until I experienced Catholicism, and without seeking something else to believe, found I did.
I do know how much I felt I was helping those to whom I preached during my mission. I would not trade the experience for anything. I have no animosity towarrd the Mormon Church itself, and respect the faith of my family members who are still Mormon.
Having said all that, there are many things you do not yet know about Mormonism because they are not taught in the manuals and without access to all the Church publications you cannot track them down, though the internet is beginning to change all that…
In my own lifetime I have seen numerous things change. The revelation allowing Blacks people to hoild the priesthood was no big deal, because we always recognized that this would happen someday. However, a few years later they made several changes in the Book of Mormon, including changing a reference that said that someday the Lamanites (Indians) would be a “white and delightsome” people to being a “pure and delightsome” people. Now the Church teaches that it never was supposed to have the intent applied in the original version, despite the fact that numerous LDS leaders had taught it that way, even in General Conference addresses – including President Spencer W. Kimball.
I do not even have an issue with them changing things, but it is the trying to covewr up that they ever taught anything else.
I promise you I will never lie to you about what I was formally taught or about what the Church has actually taught in my lifetime. I was among the best at scripture chases in my high school seminary class. I have studied most of the Institute manuals, and numerous other manuals which I inherited from my grandfather who got his from Boyd K. Packer, Paul H. Dunn, and truman G. Madsen. I interpreted for Joseph B. Wirthlin in Araraquara, Brazil in 1983.
I have participated in LDS communities on four continents and in five U.S. states. many of the things that some current LDS now deny as church teachings in these pages were common enough that wherever you went you could converse with other members about them without having to explain anything or being accused of speculation. They were commonly understood, and often the topics of discourses when general authorites visited stake conferences.
I have too much respect for the religion which formed the basis of my personality to lie to you or anyone else about what has always been taught formally during my lifetime – and I think my posts here show that I rise to Mormonism’s defense on things I know are myths about its teachings. I have even, despite the fact I now consider Mormonism a Christian heresy, encouraged my nephew to serve a mission as long as it is what he really wants to do – but that he has to have his own reasons for doing it, not just do it as an obligation. This is because it is a wonderful experience in and of itself.
I also know that every ward in the country now has people who do not really believe the Church is literally true, but it is the basis of their culture as it was mine, so they continue being involved. Unlike me, they are able to honestly comply with its teachings. I honestly did not, despite my best efforts, and I never tried to hide this.
Anything I discuss here and present as valid LDS doctrine, I talk about with my relatives. They never feel a need to correct me on my understanding of LDS doctrine, and my brother-in-law has served on a bishopric, as did my uncle.
I recommend you read The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and if you are really into reading, Joesph Smith’s/B.H. roberts’ seven-volume History of the Church. I particularly recommend you look for the full text of the King Follett Discourse (King Follett was the man’s name, and it was a speech Joseph Smith gave at his funeral).
You do not need to read anti-Mormon literature to hear the doctrines that many church members on these pages deny. You only need to review the Church’s own official publications from before about 1985 – but particularly before 1960. Many of them they never outright denied, they just stopped including them in new manuals.