LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[Todd520]

Pahoran:
Specifically, find any General Authority statement which contradicts the following from King Follet:

Quote:
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; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

So maybe it’s my reading comprehension, but my simplification of the text is

• God has been (appeared as) human in the past
• He uses his infinite power to make himselfe visible (as human)
• If you saw him today,he would appear as a man (ref to Genesis)

Now if you want Sacred Scripture to support these words, many biblical passages straightforwardly describe God as embodied. A couple are:

• Genesis 1:26 records, “And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.”
• “I [Jacob] have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30);
• “they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet . . .” (Exodus 24:10);
• “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11);
• “I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” ( Exodus 33:23).14

These are just a few of the Biblical Sacred text references to God with a body.
Maybe the Catholics think God puts on his man-suit before coming down?
Maybe this is what the Hebrews called using ‘man-language’(sp) to describe him?

Reardless of whether God has a body, sometimes takes a form we can grasp, or this is just man language, the JS text you quoted was continuing that method of description and not deviating from Holy Scripture.

Thus, no GA could contradict the statement (but they might explain it better than this newbie).

 

[Catholic20064]

So maybe it’s my reading comprehension, but my simplification of the text is

• God has been human in the past
• He uses his infinite power to make himselfe visible (as human)
• If you saw him today,he would appear as a man (ref to Genesis)

Now if you want Sacred Scripture to support these words, many biblical passages straightforwardly describe God as embodied. A couple are:
Genesis 1:26 records, “And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.”
“I [Jacob] have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30);
“they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet . . .” (Exodus 24:10);
“the Lord spake unto Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11);
“I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” ( Exodus 33:23).14

These are just a few of the Biblical Sacred text references to God with a body.
Maybe the Catholics think God puts on his man-suit before coming down?
Maybe this is what the Hebrews called man-language (?)

Reardless of whether God has a body, sometimes takes a form we can grasp, or this is just man language, the Mormon text you quoted was continuing that method of description and not deviating from Holy Scripture.

If I understand it correctly, no GA could contradict the statement (but they might explain it better than this newbie).

I think to claim that God has a body is problematic, but you can read the Bible in such a way as to uphold it. The more problematic statement is Joseph Smith’s declaration that God the Father has a Father.

The LDS belief that God simply organized pre-existing matter rather than being the cause that created the matter in the first place is also a huge problem. But since that belief comes from LDS scripture it is outside the scope of this discussion. The extra-scriptural statement of Joseph Smith that God the Father has a Father needs to be renounced if LDS are going to have any hope of bridging the gap with orthodoxy, but I see no evidence the LDS leaders are willing to state that Joseph’s teaching in this regard is not doctrine.

 

[Todd520]

I think to claim that God has a body is problematic, but you can read the Bible in such a way as to uphold it. The more problematic statement is Joseph Smith’s declaration that God the Father has a Father.

The LDS belief that God simply organized pre-existing matter rather than being the cause that created the matter in the first place is also a huge problem. But since that belief comes from LDS scripture it is outside the scope of this discussion. The extra-scriptural statement of Joseph Smith that God the Father has a Father needs to be renounced if LDS are going to have any hope of bridging the gap with orthodoxy, but I see no evidence the LDS leaders are willing to state that Joseph’s teaching in this regard is not doctrine.

Explaining God is always problematic, because he is truley unknowable to us. I admit the LDS view is more primitive (early christian) and can respect Catholic Sacred Tradition evolving the definition of God.

With your second one, i have no background, but will pull the reading comprehension card again.

I want to **reason **a little on this subject. …
Abraham … **reasoned **…
“**suppose **we have two facts: that **supposes **another fact may exist…”
If Abraham **reasoned **thus…
you may **suppose **that He had a Father also.

(Deductive reasoning?)
Where was there ever a son without a father?
And where was there ever a father without first being a son?
etc, etc.

Since there is a whole lot of “reasoning” and “supposition” and “deductive logic” going on, it is self evident this is a derived opinion or philosophical question from a guy who happens to be a religious leader. As a puzzler, it’s venacular form is Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I wish it had been posed to a college philosophy class instead of a church congregation (but BYU wasn’t around yet, right?)

 

[Catholic20064]

Explaining God is always problematic, because he is truley unknowable to us. I admit the LDS view is more primitive (early christian) and can respect Catholic Sacred Tradition evolving the definition of God.

With your second one, i have no background, but will pull the reading comprehension card again.

Since there is a whole lot of “reasoning” and “supposition” and “deductive logic” going on, it is self evident this is a derived opinion or philosophical question from a guy who happens to be a religious leader. As a puzzler, it’s venacular form is Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I wish it had been posed to a college philosophy class instead of a church congregation (but BYU wasn’t around yet, right?)

The Christian world has no difficulty stating that God came first. The LDS Church could simply renounce the doctrine that some other God was Heavenly Father’s Father instead of letting it just hang out there, but they don’t seem willing to do it. I’ve never seen any discussion of the doctrine being optional, and in my time in the LDS Church it was often presented in class as the solid truth direct from the manual. This is one doctrine that offends orthodox Christians no end so if it isn’t solid truth, renounce it. That still leaves us with the problem of the creation, but the LDS would have to renounce some of their scriptures to declare that God created the world out of nothing.

The LDS view is early Christian? I really don’t know where you get that idea.

 

[smad0142]

I have some questions about Mormon doctrine for the OP:
(all my questions are about issues in the LDS book published for teachers called Gospel Principles)

In the section entitled Our Heavenly family it seems to say that we will all become gods if we are good people on earth. It does not say that we will partake fully in the life of God but rather that we will become just like in every way God, i.e. we too will have all power in Heaven and on earth, we will have heavenly bodies like his, we will have spirit children. Isn’t this polytheistic?

Secondly there is a whole section on Eternal Marriage. Didn’t Jesus say there is no marriage at the resurrection?

I will just start with these two questions for now.

 

[LongJourney]

The LDS view is early Christian? I really don’t know where you get that idea.

That is the foundation of the Restorationist churches. They teach that Christianity, as exemplified by the Catholic Church, “went apostate” very early.

 

[Todd520]

The Christian world has no difficulty stating that God came first. The LDS Church could simply renounce the doctrine that some other God was Heavenly Father’s Father instead of letting it just hang out there, but they don’t seem willing to do it. I’ve never seen any discussion of the doctrine being optional, and in my time in the LDS Church it was often presented in class as the solid truth direct from the manual. This is one doctrine that offends orthodox Christians no end so if it isn’t solid truth, renounce it. That still leaves us with the problem of the creation, but the LDS would have to renounce some of their scriptures to declare that God created the world out of nothing.

The LDS view is early Christian? I really don’t know where you get that idea.

Catholic, my first reading of the sermon was today, and it screamed the chicken or egg puzzler. We’ll need to let a more experienced LDS respond on ‘official’ interpretation.

My understanding is theology PHDs were rare among early Christians, and they tended to be fairly literal in their interpretation of the Bible.

Since God is unknowable, it’s kind of silly to say he has a body, but that is what the Sacred Scripture says, and it’s easier for the average jo/jane to pray to an image they can actually imagine.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Catholic, my first reading of the sermon was today, and it screamed the chicken or egg puzzler. We’ll need to let a more experienced LDS respond on ‘official’ interpretation.

My understanding is theology PHDs were rare among early Christians, and they tended to be fairly literal in their interpretation of the Bible.

Since God is unknowable, it’s kind of silly to say he has a body, but that is what the Sacred Scripture says, and it’s easier for the average jo/jane to pray to an image they can actually imagine.

The Bible does not say God has a body. In fact, in the beginning, even Joe taught that God did not have a body. He taught that God was a Spirit (Articles of Faith, Art. 5).

 

[Todd520]

The Bible does not say God has a body. In fact, in the beginning, even Joe taught that God did not have a body. He taught that God was a Spirit (Articles of Faith, Art. 5).

STM, if you bother to read back a few posts, you would see references where the Bible repeatedly has God engaging with humans using a human form. I did not say he always has a body and always will have a body.

 

[SirThomasMore]

STM, if you bother to read back a few posts, you would see references where the Bible repeatedly has God engaging with humans using a human form. I did not say he always has a body and always will have a body.

lol…I never said he could not have a body. I said he does not have one. He is not limited. He is not the little god y’all put into a box you could understand.

Like I said, even Joe first taught he was Spirit. Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture-

“They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man…”

But, since we know Joe was often wrong, what does the Bible say?

John 4:24- 24God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. In Luke, we read that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones. So if God is Spirit, He does not have a body.

Now, I understand that Joe and the Mormons truly needed to make God little enough to understand. But we are NOT meant to understand God.

In Job, we read: 7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
8 [It is] as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

Do not make the mistake that Satan made…we are NOT to know everything. God is not someone you minimize in an effort to understand Him.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

And in fact I didn’t say that.

I said that the JoD were published in England.

And that they were based upon handwritten notes taken of extemporaneous talks.

Regards,
Pahoran

I have to disagree here if on nothing other than your choice of words.
I just completed a college Public speaking course. you are saying he made an improtu speach. If he were speaking extemporaneously he would have written his speach out before hand even rehersed it. He may or may not have had a notes with him, but the speach would have been done in a manner as to give the impression of being impromtu.

That said if it was an extemporaneous speach his writting of it would have been done in advance and at some point could have been made availble for publication.
so do we have an athorative source that these were published from notes taken during the speach and not from the notes he wrote in preparation of giveing it?

All I would like to point out that we have in BY a man saying that he has spoken in error and that his words are scripture. Were both can be true unless he has provdied a list of were he was in error, we are left with only two choices on his writtings:
a) DISREGARD EVERY THING HE WROTE AND SAID AS WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT WAS IN ERROR.
b) ACCEPT ALL HE WROTE AND SAID BECAUSE IT IS SCRIPTURE AS HE SAID.

Me personnly I choose (a), as other than the Bible I reject all LDS scripture, and since the LDS use either the KJV or some translation of the JKV (which though buetifully written) is a flawed translation to begin with.

Also you can not realy expect to come to a forum site that is not a site of what ever you are part of and expect to define the terms of which are use to discusse what ever it is you belong;

on a catholic site LDS can not define how LDS are discussed if they wish to do so they need to go to LDS sites. Also it is emcumbant upon you to defend and or expalin the LDS docture and beliefs if we make incorrect statements just as if you make a incorrect statemnet of catholic beleifs it is our responcisbility to correct them with the supporting refferances.

 

[Todd520]

STM, you appear to be rambling

Catholic asked for doctrine supporting God has a body
I provided Biblical reference

Net, we all appreciate the Catholic definition of God has evolved (more evolved than LDS) but there is biblical support for considering God to have a body.

 

[Todd520]

I have some questions about Mormon doctrine for the OP:
(all my questions are about issues in the LDS book published for teachers called Gospel Principles)

In the section entitled Our Heavenly family it seems to say that we will all become gods if we are good people on earth. It does not say that we will partake fully in the life of God but rather that we will become just like in every way God, i.e. we too will have all power in Heaven and on earth, we will have heavenly bodies like his, we will have spirit children. Isn’t this polytheistic?

Secondly there is a whole section on Eternal Marriage. Didn’t Jesus say there is no marriage at the resurrection?

I will just start with these two questions for now.

Please start a new thread vs hijack on this one

 

[Todd520]

Since this thread appears to have been hijacked, maybe it should be closed? At minimum, here is a restatement of of the original intent.

This is a very brief overview of a large and complex subject.

1. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists of the entirety of the teachings that have been severally accepted by the Church as a body.
2. These teachings are found in their authoritative form only in the following sources:

• The Holy Bible;
• The Book of Mormon;
• The Doctrine and Covenants;
• The Pearl of Great Price. These four volumes are collectively referred to as “the Scriptures” or “the Standard Works of the Church;” and
• Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.

1. These teachings may be expounded upon, explained, announced or interpreted in other media, such as:

• Official Church periodicals;
• Official Church curriculum materials such as lesson manuals
• The two official Church websites, www.lds.org and www.mormon.org;
• Talks by Church presidents, apostles and other General Authorities in General Conference;
• The published records of such talks;
• Talks by local leaders and members in local Church meetings such as Stake Conferences and Sacrament meetings;
• Books written by Church leaders and members;
• Discussions by Church members in various formal and informal settings.

Such sources may be taken as representing the views of those who make them, and as evidence of what the Church’s position may be upon the subjects discussed. None of these sources are held by the Church to be infallible, and as such are not binding upon the Latter-day Saints in matters of faith and morals.

1. Latter-day Saints believe that prophets are those to whom the Lord may choose to reveal His will on specific subjects from time to time. Latter-day Saints have never believed, and the Church has never taught, that God somehow takes over a prophet’s mind so that he is henceforth incapable of error. Such a view is unreasonable, unscriptural and untrue. Put simply: there is no doctrine of “prophetic infallibility” in the Church.
2. The nearest thing to such a doctrine is the oft-quoted statement that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to lead the Church astray. However, this is in nowise a claim that the Prophet’s statements would never lead anyone to hold a doctrinally incorrect opinion, because it is not our belief that we will be judged for the doctrinal purity of our opinions. Rather, it asserts that the Lord would never allow the Prophet to turn the Saints away from their duty. Orthopraxy, rather than orthodoxy, is the “gold standard” for the Latter-day Saints; and orthopraxy is mostly viewed in terms of covenant keeping.
3. From time to time, various Church leaders have taught that Latter-day Saints ought to follow the Prophet’s counsel faithfully in all things. These statement do not affirm or imply that the Prophet is actually infallible, but rather must be understood in terms of point (5) above. Inasmuch as the Lord will not permit the Prophet to lead the Church astray, the Saints will at all times be safe in following the Prophet’s counsel.

What this means for Catholic Answers is this: there is, in some quarters, a popular and rather mean-spirited game that is played wherein a handful of sentences are excerpted from statements made by leaders of the Church, ripped from the context that gives them meaning, and then flung in our faces exclusively for their shock value.

The value of such an approach is limited exclusively to the entertainment it provides to those who are hostile to the Church. It does not help anyone to better understand LDS life and teaching in any way. Believing Latter-day Saints are rightly offended by this tactic, the sole purpose of which is to inflame rather than to inform. Furthermore, to the extent that any less-informed person believes such statements to have any doctrinal force, the game is misleading. Informed, believing Latter-day Saints have a positive duty to not permit such a campaign of misrepresentation to go unchallenged, but vigorously oppose it.

Even if it is protected by moderation policy.

And besides that, it seriously lowers the tone of what is otherwise a rather good forum.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Catholic20064]

Since this thread appears to have been hijacked, maybe it should be closed? At minimum, here is a restatement of of the original intent.

What we have shown is that Pahoran’s list is only his own list. It’s not the LDS Church’s list. The LDS refuses to come to grips with its doctrines. It refuses to state what is and isn’t doctrine – a clear sign it is hiding what its real teachings are to the faithful as opposed to potential converts. Pahoran’s list will have no meaning until someone up at the top defines what is and isn’t doctrine. Until then the LDS deserve all of the criticism they get on things that past prophets have taught. That includes the teaching in the temple – it seems a bit ingenuous to have converts taught one way and then have temple teachings sprung on them after they enter the temple. I’ll never forget a new convert couple who were shocked when they were taught certain teachings in the new member class they weren’t told about until they entered the church. They were inactive just a few weeks later.

 

[SirThomasMore]

STM, you appear to be rambling

 

[Todd520]

Todd520;6955259:

Why is it that a Mormon is proven wrong, they always accuse of something like rambling? I showed you where Joe said God was Spirit. I showed you where the Bible said He was Spirit. I showed you where we are not meant to understand God. Now, don’t pout and say I am rambling because you have, once again, been proven wrong.

So where have the mormons said God does not have Spirit???
We do not conflict with the bible stating God’s spirit nature

No it all doesn’t make logical sense and fit neatly into a box (but THAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD)

 

[SirThomasMore]

No, you have claimed God is flesh and bones. He can take that shape, but he is not flesh and bones. You have been shown that.

But you NEED a little god you can understand. You NEED a god that was once a sinful man. You NEED a god that is one of many gods. You NEED a Jesus who is weak, cruel, and dishonest.

I pray someday you see the light

 

[RebeccaJ]

Scripture (the Bible) says God IS Spirit, ie, that is His nature.

 

[Todd520]

No, you have claimed God is flesh and bones. He can take that shape, but he is not flesh and bones. You have been shown that.