LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[Todd520]

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

And pray tell, where have you seen official LDS doctrine deny your statement?

 

[RebeccaJ]

And pray tell, where have you seen official LDS doctrine deny your statement?

D&C 130

22 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.

 

[smad0142]

Instead of trying to claim that I am hijacking a thread by asking about Mormon doctrines on a thread about Mormon doctrines why can’t the Mormns just reply to my post.

 

[Todd520]

D&C 130

22 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.

And how does this deny God also has a Spirit nature? I still don’t believe LDS denies any of the biblical references to God’s Spirit nature.

I also believe your quote is biblicly accurate for all of our interactions with God

• God always appeared in some physical form, from a person to even pillars of fire
• Jesus always appeared in some physical form
• Holy Ghost never appears but does touch us.

SMAD,
you were inserting another new subtopic that does hijack the discussion. Why don’t you start a new thread for your valid question? You may have noticed the Mod deleted 20 some posts for being off topic already

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6955475:

YOU are really hung up on telling other people what they think, and resort to extreme extrapolation to do so.

not at all. I am telling you what your own leaders have said. Sorry if what your leaders say offend you. They certainly offend me.

We do not have a little God, a sinful God, or a weak Jesus. If you can provide official doctrine quotes to the contrary, I’d love to see them.

Sure you do. As to the little god, your god was once a sinful man. “As Man is, God once was…” You have never heard that?

As to a cruel, dishonest, and weak Jesus…you NEED that for there to have been a total Apostasy. For there to have been a total Apostasy, Jesus lied to his Apostles and friends. For there to be a total Apostasy, Jesus had to be so weak he could not prevent the Apostasy. For there to be a total Apostasy, Jesus would have had to have been very very cruel. See, if there was to be a TOTAL Apostasy, Jesus, being God, would have known it. Yet, knowing that, he sent His best friends out to die horrible deaths KNOWING they would die and KNOWING it would be for nothing because after they did, there would a total apostasy until the 1820s. That is CRUEL. But you NEED that to have your little church.

I think you are scared and so must constantly belittle LDS, instead of engaging in a gentle and loving discourse to educate us./

QUOTE]

scared? Well, maybe you are right. I fear for your souls. I fear for what will bhappen to you for following a false prophet. I fear for the eternal damnation you face for rejecting the True God.

I do not belittle you. I pity you. I have not called you names as Pahoran does. I have not mocked your profession as Pahoran does. I have not been cruel as Pahoran is. I just keep telling the truth…over and over…I correct your mistakes…over and over…it is what I am called to do.

And I do it to help anyone who might be reading. I got an email from a member here who was considering the LDS Church. He thanked me for shedding light on topics that the missionaries had not informed him about. So, I helped one person. Maybe others will likewise be helped.

And that is what I do.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And how does this deny God also has a Spirit nature? I still don’t believe LDS denies any of the biblical references to God’s Spirit nature.

I also believe your quote is biblicly accurate for all of our interactions with God

• God always appeared in some physical form, from a person to even pillars of fire
• Jesus always appeared in some physical form
• Holy Ghost never appears but does touch us.

Luke 24:39 (King James Version)

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; **for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

**A pillar of fire is not a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man”. Jesus is God Incarnate. He lowered Himself for us.

 

[Todd520]

Todd520;6955508:

SirThomasMore;6955475:

Sure you do. As to the little god, your god was once a sinful man. “As Man is, God once was…” You have never heard that?
.

So you have extrapolated your whole belief in the LDS understanding of God from YOUR INTERPRETATION of this one poetic phrase? That is alot to hang your hat on buddy.

Where is LDS interpretation that supports your understanding of this phrase, that the LDS have a weak, sinful, little god?
What about all the LDS interpretation that identifies an all powerful and loving God? (must be ignored, right?)

Yes, i do pity you and your hate of the LDS faith and community.

 

[smad0142]

I started a new thread with my questions Todd so I hope you will answer them.

 

[Todd520]

I started a new thread with my questions Todd so I hope you will answer them.

Thanks for starting a new thread, I only have a month of LDS study under my belt so I’m limited and only offer my interpretation. I’m still learning.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“We have never preached violence,
except the violence of love,
which left Christ nailed to a cross, the violence that we must each do to ourselves to overcome our selfishness and such cruel inequalities among us.
The violence we preach is not the violence of the sword, the violence of hatred. It is the violence of love,
of brotherhood, the violence that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work.”
November 27, 1977

“We will be firm in defending our rights –
but with a great love in our hearts, because when we defend ourselves with love we are also seeking sinners’ conversion. That is the Christian’s vengeance.”
June 19, 1977

Oscar Romero - shot on March 24, 1980, while celebrating Mass at a small chapel located in a hospital called “La Divina Providencia”

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6955629:

Todd520;6955508:

So you have extrapolated your whole belief in the LDS understanding of God from YOUR INTERPRETATION of this one poetic phrase? That is alot to hang your hat on buddy.

not at all. It is very, very clear, especially taken in light of the King Follett Discourse regarding Exalted Man. The phrase is clear: “As Man IS, God once was…”. How IS man? Hmmm? Now, perhaps you wanna play Bill Clinton and try to tell us what the word “is” means…but the phrase is clear. As man IS. You can;t get around that.

Where is LDS interpretation that supports your understanding of this phrase, that the LDS have a weak, sinful, little god?

Do you mean the LDS whitewash? Yes, I am aware of what they say NOW. I am aware that Hinkley lied about it. I am aware of all of that. But the whitewash of today does not do anything about the truth of yesterday. “As man IS…” You can never get around that.

Yes, i do pity you and your hate of the LDS faith and community./

lol…there you go again, Todd…you pretend to know how I feel. You play the LDS victim…everyone who says anything against anything LDS is full of hate. How sad thatyou are already so brainwashed.

There is no hate, Todd. And, if you truly followed Christ, you would not judge me.

I will pray for you…

QUOTE]

 

[soren1]

SirThomasMore;6955629:

Todd520;6955508:

So you have extrapolated your whole belief in the LDS understanding of God from YOUR INTERPRETATION of this one poetic phrase? That is alot to hang your hat on buddy.

Where is LDS interpretation that supports your understanding of this phrase, that the LDS have a weak, sinful, little god?
What about all the LDS interpretation that identifies an all powerful and loving God? (must be ignored, right?)

Yes, i do pity you and your hate of the LDS faith and community.

Lorenzo Snow’s couplet is not the sole or even the best source for Mormon views on the origin of God, which could be documented extensively, to the point of very boring repetitiousness, from the mouth of every prophet in the Church’s history.

There is no explicit teaching in Mormon theology that God has ever sinned, but it is enough to point out that LDS theology provides no reason to say he didn’t. If it is possible in principle for sinners like us to become gods in the same sense that Elohim is a god, then the converse must hold as well: it is possible that Elohim was a sinner at one time. Early Mormons caught onto this, such as Orson Pratt, who writes in The Seer:

*The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. Their terrestrial world was redeemed, and glorified, and made a Heaven: their terrestrial bodies, after suffering death, were redeemed, and glorified, and made Gods. And thus, as their world was exalted from a temporal to an eternal state, they were exalted also, from fallen man to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever. *(p. 23)

It might of course be the case that Elohim was not a redeemed sinner, that he was perhaps the redeemer on his world or else a child who died before the age of reason. But one need not go so far to make the point. The fact is, your theology provides you with no rationale to definitively deny God’s eternal sinlessness. If you are going to one day be god yourself, in the univocal sense posited by Mormonism, you will one day be able to make claims about yourself like this one:

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. (Is 57:15)

If we sinners men can acquire such glory, who is to say that the one who has that glory now did not sin himself?

Of course for the true worshippers, God’s sinlesses is immediately implied by his holiness. When Isaiah approached the vision of God, he could not enter God’s presence until his tongue was purified by fire, because the nothing unclean can abide in the presence the Lord. How much sense would that make if God were a being like Isaiah who had had comparable faults? Yet Mormonism teaches that sinful Isaiah himself will be able to attain the same degree of glory.

 

[Pahoran]

The President of the Church is the only man on earth authorized by God to go beyond or add to the scriptures. “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard Church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, Well, that is his own idea.” (Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in Charge, p. 111.)

“The older I get and the closer the contact I have with the President of the Church, the more I realize that the greatest of all scriptures which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to His children is scripture. It is intended for all the children of God upon the earth. It is His word and His will and His law made manifest through His ordained and anointed servant to the world. What the President says is scripture, and I love it more than all other. It applies to me today specifically, and to you all.” (“Beware of Temptation,” Brigham Young University tri-stake fireside address, [Provo, January 1963], pp. 7–8.)

Yes, very good.

Please refer to the OP, points 5 and 6.

As a matter of interest, who gave the talk in the second excerpt?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Todd520]

There is no explicit teaching in Mormon theology that God has ever sinned, but it is enough to point out that LDS theology provides no reason to say he didn’t.

Honestly, did you read what you wrote before posting? We aren’t doing a school debate, a logic proof or writing math theorems

I asked what the church explicitly teaches, and you agreed there is no explicit teaching - END OF STORY

Now, if you want to discuss whether some people don’t understand their faith, that is completely different, and often quite embarrassing

 

[zaffiroborant]

Honestly, did you read what you wrote before posting? We aren’t doing a school debate, a logic proof or writing math theorems

I asked what the church explicitly teaches, and you agreed there is no explicit teaching - END OF STORY

Now, if you want to discuss whether some people don’t understand their faith, that is completely different, and often quite embarrassing

Hmmm I though we aren’t supposed to talk about people, and we are supposed to talk about ideas.

 

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

I would like to believe that your original statement is correct. In that case you simply need to find an authoritative statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stating what you have stated.

Specifically, I would like you find a statement from a General Authority in General Conference that states that what Joseph Smith said in the King Follet sermon and in his temple grove sermon are false.

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

And this from the temple grove sermon:

Find me any statement from a General Authority that declares the above two statements aren’t doctrine. I’m sure you can find many statements that support these doctrines, but find me one that says this isn’t LDS doctrine.

All the LDS Church has to do is state that God the Father did not have a Father. If it isn’t willing to do this I would say we would have to accept Joseph Smith’s statements at face value. The LDS Church has specifically stated the Adam-God doctrine is false. I don’t recall them ever declaring Smith’s teachings aren’t doctrine when it would be very simple for some leader to do so. They wouldn’t even have to call them false doctrine, just declare they aren’t doctrine.

This thread is about the boundaries of LDS doctrine, not about specific LDS doctrines.

I’m happy to tackle your question from that perspective; and I suggest that the King Follett Discourse occupies a rather unique position in LDS thought. It has never been canonised, or accepted as authoritative or binding. However, it seems to occupy almost quasi-canonical status. And as Rebecca has helpfully posted, it is revealed LDS doctrine that God the Father has a body.

The second sermon is less well-known, and has much less influence in LDS thought. It is not doctrine that God the Father has a father. Indeed, if you read the passage that says so, it does not proclaim or announce this as revealed truth, but argues for it by analogy. In the last analysis, what distinguishes LDS doctrine from LDS “talk” is that we accept as doctrine only what is revealed.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

lol…

Your derisive cackles add nothing to any discussion.

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 [Joseph Smith] 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…”

Joseph Smith was not the author of the Lectures. That is Sidney Rigdon’s teaching.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Todd520]

The phrase is clear: “As Man IS, God once was…”. How IS man? Hmmm? Now, perhaps you wanna play Bill Clinton and try to tell us what the word “is” means…but the phrase is clear. As man IS. You can;t get around that.
QUOTE]

I’m still only hearing your interpretation of the significance of this text.

People like you are the reason the Catholic Church doesn’t let anyone else interpret the Bible for the RCC.
I know they disagree with my read on Genesis, where man is created in the image of God.
I think it’s pretty clear but respect the RCC right to interpret for their flock, because I DON’T TELL THE RCC WHAT THEY THINK.

 

[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 is not the case. “Extemporanous” means “out of the moment,” i.e. impromptu, unprepared. Conference talks were not prepared in advance in those days. That’s just the way it was. It didn’t apply only to Brigham; speaking assigments simply were not made in advance.

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?

There were no notes written in preparation.

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.

This is an instance of the fallacy of the false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between swallowing it all or just spitting it out; the third alternative is to chew it over a little.

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.

Naturally you are entitled to accept or reject whatever you please.

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;

No, but I can expect some degree of civilised behaviour.

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.

Krister Stendahl, who was no more a Mormon than you are, being the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, defined Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding. These are:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies. In the context of this forum, that means this: Catholic doctrine is what the Catholic participants say that it is; LDS doctrine is what the LDS participants say that it is.

(2) Don’t compare your best to their worst. I’m convinced that he would see the spiteful mining of quotes selected for shock value as a violation of this rule.

(3) Leave room for “holy envy.” Be prepared to admit that the other guys have something you admire and wish your own faith tradition had.

Stendahl’s rules would foster understanding in both directions. The violation of them merely promotes strife.

Which course of action is more consistent with 1 Corinthians 13?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[RebeccaJ]

The President of the Church is the only man on earth authorized by God to go beyond or add to the scriptures. “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard Church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, Well, that is his own idea.” (Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in * Charge, * p. 111.)

“The older I get and the closer the contact I have with the President of the Church, the more I realize that the greatest of all scriptures which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to His children is scripture. It is intended for all the children of God upon the earth. It is His word and His will and His law made manifest through His ordained and anointed servant to the world. What the President says is scripture, and I love it more than all other. It applies to me today specifically, and to you all.” (“Beware of Temptation,” Brigham Young University tri-stake fireside address, [Provo, January 1963], pp. 7–8.)

Yes, very good.

Please refer to the OP, points 5 and 6.

1. 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.

Orthopraxy is informed by what is taught and believed. If there are incorrect teachings and beliefs, then there will be incorrect practices.

Adhering to a defined duty in no way requires a prophet.

1. 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.

So what you’re saying is that you can believe anything and everything that one of your prophets says? Truth doesn’t matter?

(President Henry D. Moyle is where the 2nd quote came from.)