LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[SirThomasMore]

Your derisive cackles add nothing to any discussion.

 

[soren1]

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

I am not criticizing Mormonism for what it teaches per se; I am criticizing it for what it does not teach. The fact that there is no explicit teaching on whether God sinned is not the end of the story but the beginning. For it raises the question, “Why is there no such teaching?” I believe the answer to that question is “Because the nature of God in Mormonism provides no basis to think he didn’t.” That by itself reveals an incredible lack of appreciation for God’s holiness, regardless of what opinion or non-opinion any particular Mormon might hold on the issue.

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

I think it is a misunderstanding to say that Mormonism positively teaches that God sinned. I think Orson Pratt believed so, but I don’t think his writings have to command assent from Mormons automatically. Every religion has different schools of thought within itself, which can be important, and even debatable among members. For instance, there has been in the last century an extensive discussion among Catholic theologians a to whether man’s supernatural vocation to beatitude is a property of pure nature or an addition to nature made by grace. The Church has taken no official stance on this question, so it is fair game. Nevertheless, the Church’s teachings as they exist do provide certain boundaries, which set limits to how one may or may not speculate. Only the range of opinions that fall within those boundaries are acceptable.

It reflects upon the teachings of a church what range of permissible opinions it allows. If its theology does not answer every question, it should at least provide sufficient boundaries to rule out the major blasphemies. A statement like “God sinned” is an example of that. That the LDS Church doesn’t affirm or deny it does not exempt the church from criticism, because the inability to answer that question firmly in the negative, based on the nature of God, is itself grounds for criticism. To respond by simply writing “end of story” in all caps is to avoid the issue completely, because the absence of official LDS teaching here is not a problem for my position, but is in fact my first principle.

 

[Pahoran]

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.

You know, I fail entirely to see how anyone can suppose that it advances any discussion in any direction to take such a hyper-suspicious view as to assume that the other guys must be hiding something if they don’t do things the way you would like. What you have really demonstrated is that you simply do not understand LDS thought.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is outside the Western tradition of speculative theology. It has a different method of coming to grips with its doctrines than what you see elsewhere. It doesn’t have fourteen centuries of “defining” things behind it. It was once pointed out of the biblical prophets that they weren’t interested in “demonstrating” anything; they used parables to teach principles, not syllogisms to prove stuff. And that, for better or for worse, is the tradition in which we find ourselves.

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.

So very charitable of you to tell us what we deserve.

Despite your magisterial verdict, however, believing Latter-day Saints will continue to oppose the polemical dirty trick of which you are so enamoured.

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.

Latter-day Saints of integrity and courage will, of course, keep Temple matters sacred, even in the face of concerted mocking, jeering, trampling and rending.

I will say that there is no doctrine taught in the Temple that is not also taught elsewhere. And that’s all I have to say about that.

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.

Which is a problem we are constantly working to improve on.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

When the practitioners of a religion lie about its history and deeper teachings, one must turn to people outside of that religion. When the practitioners of a religion acknowledge that they have secret rites and rituals, that is a red light that the first statement applies.

(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…

When I read the BoM, I find some amazing passages that are a SATIRE of Mormonism. I do not see this as spiteful; I see it as the best of the book. When is the last time you got up on the Raeumpton?

(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

A great sense of community, strong family values---------------

so long as you submit to the party line.

 

[Pahoran]

Soren,

in my industry, there is a saying: “Good, cheap, quick. Pick any two out of three.” Meaning that all three cannot exist in the same place.

In the field of LDS criticism, I adapt that saying thus: “Honest, well-informed, quoting from ‘The Seer.’ Pick any two out of three.”

I have never had reason to suppose you to be dishonest, Soren; but I really thought you knew better than this:

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:

I thought you knew that “The Seer” was denounced by the First Presidency and repudiated by its author; does that come as news to you?

In any event, it is not used as a source of LDS doctrine by the Latter-day Saints. Therefore it is not appropriate for our opponents to use it as such either.

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.

It is true that we believe the Atonement of Christ to be powerful enough to accomplish this.

Don’t you?

Perhaps this is grist for another thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

When the practitioners of a religion lie about its history and deeper teachings, one must turn to people outside of that religion. When the practitioners of a religion acknowledge that they have secret rites and rituals, that is a red light that the first statement applies.

When the opponents of a religion constantly misrepresent its history and deeper teachings, then try to cover up their misrepresentations by accusing the adherents thereof of “lying” by not bashing their own faith the way the opponents do, it is apparent that there is no good-faith attempt at interreligious understanding going on at all.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

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.

The prooftext is unconvincing.

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.

Brazen hate-mongering. “Weak, cruel and dishonest?” Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?

I pray someday you see the light

I have. Which is why I can never lower myself to your level.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Murdock]

To the extent that Todd’s only question/topic is the actual teachings of the Church, his response to Soren, “end of story”, is correct. Of course, I wish Todd would have been a lot more tactful in expressing his valid point.

But, I am a bit of a speculator myself – when the Church has no teaching one way or the other – and Soren’s point intrigues me.

DISCLAIMER: What I say here should NOT be construed as teachings of the Church. Also, although I am influenced greatly by the opinions of the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles (and Orson Pratt is a favorite of mine), their opinions are NOT necessarily teachings of the Church and are NOT binding upon Mormons.

Elohim did, indeed, begin His premortal life in preexistence as a sprit child of a God. The God who fathered Elohim was, Himself, the spirit child of a previous God, and so on back in an infinite regression. (Do not complain about my infinite regression and I will not complain about your creation ex nihilo.)

Elohim was, indeed, once a man as we are. Indeed, He had to receive a mortal body, like ours, and experience a mortal probation, like ours, in order to progress so that He could become a God, as we have the POTENTIAL to do – and revive the heart of the contrite ones.

When Elohim was a man like us, of course He sinned like us. That is because of the sinful nature of men. (We are not talking about Jehovah/Jesus here, who is united in purpose in the Godhead with Elohim but is otherwise a separate God who did not go through a sinful mortal probation as did Elohim.) However, once He progressed to the point that He became a God, He no longer sinned. Gods do not sin.

Thus, to respond to Soren’s two rhetorical questions: (1) of course Isaiah was a sinner, because he was a man and (2) of course Isaiah had the POTENTIAL to progress to become a sinless God, because he was a man.

Assuming that you believe that Elohim had to undergo a mortal probation, there is nothing the least bit shocking about his sinning during that mortal probation.

Murdock

 

[SirThomasMore]

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

 

[LongJourney]

Pahoran:

it is apparent that there is no good-faith attempt at interreligious understanding going on at all.

Which is why I can never lower myself to your level.

Then why are you here? I think most people on these forums are glad to have a strong social community, where they can learn about Catholicism, and exchange ideas and perceptions with others.

Murdock:
I enjoy your posts. Even though the beliefs you express are way out there, you have the right to express them. And I have the right to :ehh:

 

[SirThomasMore]

To the extent that Todd’s only question/topic is the actual teachings of the Church, his response to Soren, “end of story”, is correct. Of course, I wish Todd would have been a lot more tactful in expressing his valid point.

But, I am a bit of a speculator myself – when the Church has no teaching one way or the other – and Soren’s point intrigues me.

DISCLAIMER: What I say here should NOT be construed as teachings of the Church. Also, although I am influenced greatly by the opinions of the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles (and Orson Pratt is a favorite of mine), their opinions are NOT necessarily teachings of the Church and are NOT binding upon Mormons.

Elohim did, indeed, begin His premortal life in preexistence as a sprit child of a God. The God who fathered Elohim was, Himself, the spirit child of a previous God, and so on back in an infinite regression. (Do not complain about my infinite regression and I will not complain about your creation ex nihilo.)

Elohim was, indeed, once a man as we are. Indeed, He had to receive a mortal body, like ours, and experience a mortal probation, like ours, in order to progress so that He could become a God, as we have the POTENTIAL to do – and revive the heart of the contrite ones.

When Elohim was a man like us, of course He sinned like us. That is because of the sinful nature of men. (We are not talking about Jehovah/Jesus here, who is united in purpose in the Godhead with Elohim but is otherwise a separate God who did not go through a sinful mortal probation as did Elohim.) However, once He progressed to the point that He became a God, He no longer sinned. Gods do not sin.

Thus, to respond to Soren’s two rhetorical questions: (1) of course Isaiah was a sinner, because he was a man and (2) of course Isaiah had the POTENTIAL to progress to become a sinless God, because he was a man.

Assuming that you believe that Elohim had to undergo a mortal probation, there is nothing the least bit shocking about his sinning during that mortal probation.

Murdock

So, when God says he is unchanging and that he is the only God, He is lying?

 

[Todd520]

It reflects upon the teachings of a church what range of permissible opinions it allows. If its theology does not answer every question, it should at least provide sufficient boundaries to rule out the major blasphemies. A statement like “God sinned” is an example of that. That the LDS Church doesn’t affirm or deny it does not exempt the church from criticism, because the inability to answer that question firmly in the negative, based on the nature of God, is itself grounds for criticism. To respond by simply writing “end of story” in all caps is to avoid the issue completely, because the absence of official LDS teaching here is not a problem for my position, but is in fact my first principle.

Soren, I thought the dispute was on core beliefs and teachings of the LDS.
If you are now comparing or discussing the quality of our “boundary doctrine” and how much leeway is left, I am not your man (prob not even the right thread)
I hope it doesn’t take LDS another 1,500 yrs to hone it down like RCC

 

[SirThomasMore]

The prooftext is unconvincing.

 

[Pahoran]

Then why are you here?

To defend my faith.

I think most people on these forums are glad to have a strong social community, where they can learn about Catholicism, and exchange ideas and perceptions with others.

A “strong social community” seems like a good thing. People who are constantly told that they don’t get to speak on behalf of their own faith tradition may be in the community, but they are clearly not part of it. They are the demonised “other,” tolerated because they provide amusement for the “in” crowd.

I have participated in a number of non-LDS forums that seem to spend an inordinate amoung of time bashing my faith. Some of them have rules to the effect that Latter-day Saints aren’t allowed to quote from the Bible, or that they aren’t allowed to call themselves Christians. Some of them insist that if any LDS participant starts to express doubts or waverings, no other LDS participant should try to answer their concerns.

And although I knew coming in that CAF had its contingent of Mormon-bashers, I really thought, given that it didn’t have the kinds of rules other fora have, it would be better than this. I had this picture in my mind that Catholics would conduct themselves with more dignity and charity.

Well, that stereotype has certainly been exploded.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[twopekinguys]

To the extent that Todd’s only question/topic is the actual teachings of the Church, his response to Soren, “end of story”, is correct. Of course, I wish Todd would have been a lot more tactful in expressing his valid point.

But, I am a bit of a speculator myself – when the Church has no teaching one way or the other – and Soren’s point intrigues me.

DISCLAIMER: What I say here should NOT be construed as teachings of the Church. Also, although I am influenced greatly by the opinions of the 19th Century Prophets and Apostles (and Orson Pratt is a favorite of mine), their opinions are NOT necessarily teachings of the Church and are NOT binding upon Mormons.

Elohim did, indeed, begin His premortal life in preexistence as a sprit child of a God. The God who fathered Elohim was, Himself, the spirit child of a previous God, and so on back in an infinite regression. (Do not complain about my infinite regression and I will not complain about your creation ex nihilo.)

Elohim was, indeed, once a man as we are. Indeed, He had to receive a mortal body, like ours, and experience a mortal probation, like ours, in order to progress so that He could become a God, as we have the POTENTIAL to do – and revive the heart of the contrite ones.

When Elohim was a man like us, of course He sinned like us. That is because of the sinful nature of men. (We are not talking about Jehovah/Jesus here, who is united in purpose in the Godhead with Elohim but is otherwise a separate God who did not go through a sinful mortal probation as did Elohim.) However, once He progressed to the point that He became a God, He no longer sinned. Gods do not sin.

Thus, to respond to Soren’s two rhetorical questions: (1) of course Isaiah was a sinner, because he was a man and (2) of course Isaiah had the POTENTIAL to progress to become a sinless God, because he was a man.

Assuming that you believe that Elohim had to undergo a mortal probation, there is nothing the least bit shocking about his sinning during that mortal probation.

Murdock

Thank you Murdock!!

I must say, I think you are the first LDS I have encountered that readily admits

1. The LDS view of god was the he was once a sinful man.
2. The god of the LDS had a god before him, and before him, etc.

Now, a couple of questions for you.

In your disclaimer, you say your view should not be construed as teachings of the church. If it isn’t a teaching of your church, how did you arrive at these conclusions?

and

How widely do you think your view is held by the everyday mormon?

 

[Pahoran]

truth does not convince you, either. I have only posted truth

You posted an argument that is less than compelling.

hmmm…you claim my lol did not add anything to the conversation. Did your attack? I have not attacked you. I have not called you names.

You engaged in intentionally inflammatory baiting. You work very hard to provoke your opponents. It’s a bit late for you to act all injured and innocent.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

Thank you Murdock!!

I must say, I think you are the first LDS I have encountered that readily admits

Why must you use this kind of loaded language? Why must everyone who doesn’t say what you want them to say be automatically presumed to be hiding something?

1. The LDS view of god was the he was once a sinful man.
2. The god of the LDS had a god before him, and before him, etc.

Now, a couple of questions for you.

In your disclaimer, you say your view should not be construed as teachings of the church. If it isn’t a teaching of your church, how did you arrive at these conclusions?

and

How widely do you think your view is held by the everyday mormon?

It is one strand of LDS thought; pretty much a minority one. Contrary to the stereotype so popular around here, Latter-day Saints really do have their own opinions about things.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

So, when God says he is unchanging and that he is the only God, He is lying?

Your use of the fallacy of the false dilemma is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

People who are constantly told that they don’t get to speak on behalf of their own faith tradition may be in the community, but they are clearly not part of it. They are the demonised “other,” tolerated because they provide amusement for the “in” crowd.

You are here. You have not been banned. Why are you complaining? You are being given the opportunity to express your beliefs. I don’t see what your problem is with CAF.

What I DO know, from my experiences with Mormons IRL, is that my perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and experiences were invalidated and ignored. I did not have the right to express them I did not have the right to be human. I don’t see that happening here, for you.

You have very accurately described the ways that Mormons demonize others. Thank you. I could really identify with your description of what I experienced.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Your use of the fallacy of the false dilemma is off-topic for this thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

stop dodging by being rude. God said he was unchanging. Murdock said God was a sinful man who became a God. You don;t believe that constitutes a change?

God said he was THE ONLY GOD. Murdock and LDS Doctrine claim there are MANY GODS.

So…who is lying…Mormons or God?