LDS / The Nature of God

[mormon_fool]

paul barlow:

1. God had a beginning.
2. God had parents.
3. God had a god above Him.
4. God has a wife who is a goddess, and together they create spirit children.
5. God is only the creator of this universe.
6. God is still increasing in intelligence and glory.
7. Men can also progress like God did and become gods themselves.
   please tell me were we have denied this doctrine.
   sorry friends this is the nature of god.

Interesting list by Chris and confirmation by Paul, two posters whose knowledge of things LDS I have come to respect. However I find this list problematic, and rather than declaring any of these points true or *false, *I will wiki them into something that more LDS, including myself would feel more comfortable with. I will also leave a few notes explaining the emendations.

1. God had no beginning.
2. Some LDS speculate that God had parents.
3. According to a non-canonical discourse by Joseph Smith, God had a god above Him.
4. *i)Most LDS *believe that God has a wife who is a goddess. ii) A common interpretation of the phrase “eternal increase” in LDS scriptures deals with the creation of spirit children.
5. God is the creator of this universe, but he delegated some of the work of creation to others.
6. Some LDS thinkers debate about how God is still increasing in intelligence and glory.
7. Men can also progress to become like God did and become gods themselves.

Notes:

1. In mormon theology matter can not be created. We (and God) have always existed in some form or another. One reference for this is in Abraham 3. I provided many of the scriptural sources for “eternal progression” on an earlier thread.

2 and 3. The only sources I have seen these ideas that is worth mentioning is the King Follett discourse (KFD). Socrates’s comments are worth repeating about the status of these speculations:

In my mind, “speculation” is something that one is at liberty to propose theoretically, but others in the faith are not bound to believe.

This is exactly the situation in LDS thought on these topics. I am in no danger of being excommunicated by saying that I lean against 2 and 3 as they were posed originally. Generally, I am cautious about disagreeing with Joseph Smith so I don’t have a firm commitment about my beliefs in regards to 2 and 3, and I can live with uncertainty. I can think of at least two faithful LDS scholars who have felt free to speculate (and publish) otherwise and they are still considered “faithful”.

1. For those looking for sources on this item, consider the current LDS hymn “O My Father” written by a wife of Joseph Smith. The thought that parents might be single in heaven makes “reason stare” so we must have a Mother “there”. Also interesting is 2nd temple Judaism’s take on the issue.
2. I just threw that in there for completeness. I have also enjoyed the comments about multiple universes.
3. See the Encyclopedia of Mormonism citation in the aforementioned thread.

No official Church teaching attempts to specify all the ways in which God progresses in his exalted spheres; “there is no end to [His] works, neither to [His] words” (Moses 1:38). God’s glory and power are enhanced as his children progress in glory and power (see Moses 1:39; Young, JD 10:5). Ideas have been advanced to explain how God might progress in knowledge and still be perfect and know all things.
7. A solid concept in LDS doctrine and scriptures. This is really what President Hinckley’s 1994 comments pertain to. I eliminated the problematic “progress like God did” because very little has been revealed about God’s history before “the beginning”. In LDS thought, Jesus was God before he became mortal and he is our best model for contemplating his Father.

On a related note, I defended my prophet’s comments about the first half of the Snow couplet and related KFD concepts in another forum as well as here awhile ago. I compiled all the references to it in the last 35 years that are in the LDS church’s online archives here.

later,
fool

 

[Chris-WA]

mormon fool:

Interesting list by Chris and confirmation by Paul, two posters whose knowledge of things LDS I have come to respect.

Thank you for your kind words.

However I find this list problematic, and rather than declaring any of these points true or *false, *I will wiki them into something that more LDS, including myself would feel more comfortable with. I will also leave a few notes explaining the emendations.

1. God had no beginning.1. In mormon theology matter can not be created. We (and God) have always existed in some form or another. One reference for this is in Abraham 3. I provided many of the scriptural sources for “eternal progression” on an earlier thread.

So you’re saying that God had no beginning because He has always existed in some form or another (in other words, not always as God as we know Him now)? And you say the same applies to us? That to me is truly bizarre. Don’t you see that when you say this you make God part of the universe instead of its creator? Don’t you see that this would make matter equal to God?

The point I was making is that if God was once a man, then at some point he had a beginning as a man, and then a beginning as God. But this view is contrary to the entire revelation of God about Himself given throughout salvation history. It is blasphemy in its purest form. Wouldn’t you agree that what we teach about the character of God is the very foundation of our entire religion? If you don’t get this right, then everything else that follows is suspect, and I mean everything.

1. Some LDS speculate that God had parents.

1. According to a non-canonical discourse by Joseph Smith, God had a god above Him.2 and 3. The only sources I have seen these ideas that is worth mentioning is the King Follett discourse (KFD).

That is the original source, but later prophets carried on this teaching, so they must have thought it worthy of passing on. If it was just speculation, they would not have publicly taught it. It’s more than speculation.

1. *i)Most LDS *believe that God has a wife who is a goddess. ii) A common interpretation of the phrase “eternal increase” in LDS scriptures deals with the creation of spirit children.4. For those looking for sources on this item, consider the current LDS hymn “O My Father” written by a wife of Joseph Smith. The thought that parents might be single in heaven makes “reason stare” so we must have a Mother “there”. Also interesting is 2nd temple Judaism’s take on the issue.

If that is true, than God is a member of a species of being, and is not unique. This is a far different god than the one taught by traditional Jewish/Christian doctrine.

1. God is the creator of this universe, but he delegated some of the work of creation to others.

The only delegating was to Jesus his son, through whom all things were made, and there is only one universe, and one God who created it all.

 

[catholic-rcia]

catholic-rcia:

lhvm.org/ctbf/dialup.htm

The Nature of God is everything
God Bless

Coming to understand the Nature of God will pull you into the Trinity. Everything changes, nothing is scene as it was before. The doors begin to open one by one. This is the treasure found where pride is exposed for what it is and from where it comes. Then the battle begins,. as the doctor, Christ is allowed to come to the center and do His work. Tonight at our small Parish we speak on the Nature of God, on Christ Jesus Himself.

God Bless
%between%

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris,

Thanks for your very thoughtful response.

So you’re saying that God had no beginning because He has always existed in some form or another (in other words, not always as God as we know Him now)?

Yes to the former, but I am purposely avoiding taking a definite stance on the latter. God may well have always had much of his nature in tact before the beginning or He may have gone through a progression that resembles our’s or Jesus’s. Regardless of what His history was like, the one thing that LDS can confirm is that He had no beginning.

One of the reasons we relate to Jesus so well is that he underwent mortality even though he was already considered God. It is easier to follow some one who has gone through what we are going through and triumphed where we fail. A current LDS priesthood manual extends this argument to the Father (like Son, like Father to turn the phrase around.) But this observation should be tempered with Abraham 3:18 where God declares Himself the most “intelligent” spirit of them all.

Don’t you see that when you say this you make God part of the universe instead of its creator? Don’t you see that this would make matter equal to God?

This sounds a lot like Tertullian’s reasonings against creation ex materia. I guess great minds think alike. My brief response is that we have to careful with how we order sets. If the ordering metric is who/what came into being first then we are equal. If the ordering metric is who is more “intelligent” and who has the most intimate role as a Father-creator-organizer-progress enabler in our lives, than the God we worship is truly greater than us.

The point I was making is that if God was once a man, then at some point he had a beginning as a man, and then a beginning as God.

The early catholic church spent a few centuries working out this point of theology in regards to Christ. Since LDS church doesn’t make the same sharp distinctions between the nature of God and nature of man, there is considerably less urgency to make definitive statements where little has been revealed.

That is the original source, but later prophets carried on this teaching, so they must have thought it worthy of passing on. If it was just speculation, they would not have publicly taught it. It’s more than speculation.

Opinions will vary about what is speculation or not when a teaching does not get canonized. The number of people merely repeating a teaching is indeterminate of whether the original was speculation, inspired musings, a (mis)interpretation of scriptures, or revealed truth. I like Socrates’s definition that something is “speculation” when members are free to personally and respectfully disagree with it without consequence.

If that is true, than God is a member of a species of being, and is not unique. This is a far different god than the one taught by traditional Jewish/Christian doctrine.

I think you are referring to late traditions here. Before the 2nd century, God was generally thought of in very anthromorphic terms in the Judeo/Christian tradition.

The only delegating was to Jesus his son, through whom all things were made, and there is only one universe, and one God who created it all.

Yes this is the direction I was going in, although I and LDS in general would be less definite about the "only"s and "one"s.

later,
fool

 

[catholic-rcia]

http://www.bookofabraham.info/VideoClips.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/One_True_God.asp

But this observation should be tempered with Abraham 3:18 where God declares Himself the most “intelligent” spirit of them all.

As a Christian Catholic it is my complete understanding that all intelligence is from God and is a gift of God. the most intellegent thing we can do with it is give it up to Him and ask for it only in the form of His grace. Using it any other way only gets us in trouble. If you would like this Video I always have one on me, Just ask.

Regarding God’s One Spirit, His Spirit to us through Christ
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm
God Bless

 

[catholic-rcia]

"Better to know the planner than the plan"

Lord, you are not pleased with someone simply because that person is knowledgeable. In fact, it would be possible for one to know everything there is to know in the whole wide world, except for knowing you, and consequently know nothing. Just as another person could live in blissful ignorance of the great sum of human knowledge, but know you, and be both happy and content. After all, who is better placed - the person who owns a tree and gives You thanks for all the good things it provides; or the one who owns a similar tree and knows its weight and dimensions down to the least leaf, but does not realize that You are its Creator and that it is through You that he or she has use of it? In essence, the latter person is ignorant, though full of facts, and the former person wise, though bit short on details.

So in general we can say that the most important knowledge is knowledge of You, O Lord."**…**St. Augustine

All in All

Whenever there is true fellowship and love between people, God’s spirit is always present. In all human relationships, God’s spirit is what brings them together. When a life is changed through the channel of another person, it is God who makes that change using the person as a means. The moving power behind all spiritual things, all personal Relationships between people is God, who is always there. No personal relationships can be right without God’s presence.****

………….From the Word among Us

 

[Chris-WA]

mormon fool:

Yes to the former, but I am purposely avoiding taking a definite stance on the latter. God may well have always had much of his nature in tact before the beginning or He may have gone through a progression that resembles our’s or Jesus’s. Regardless of what His history was like, the one thing that LDS can confirm is that He had no beginning.

I’m not really sure how you can say this, in fact, it seems very nebulous and confusing. I cannot over-emphasize just how critical this issue is between Catholics and LDS. In your view, God may or may not have once been a man who progressed to his godhood, or he may have “had much of his nature intact before the beginning.” Mormon fool, I would submit to you that this issue is too important to avoid by not taking a stance. It seems quite clear that JS, BY, and others took a definite stance, and publicly taught it to the church. Now in recent times the LDS prophet has greatly muddied the waters on this issue. Mormon fool, if you don’t really know who God is, what kind of foundation do you have?

A current LDS priesthood manual extends this argument to the Father (like Son, like Father to turn the phrase around.)

This would be a mistake, because Jesus is God who took on flesh. God the Father did not do this in some past time. It happened only once, in the person of Jesus. This is how God fully encountered his people, by taking on the human condition. That is one reason why we can say that Jesus is the fulfillment of the revelation of God. God revealed himself most fully in the person of Jesus.

This sounds a lot like Tertullian’s reasonings against creation ex materia. I guess great minds think alike. My brief response is that we have to careful with how we order sets. If the ordering metric is who/what came into being first then we are equal. If the ordering metric is who is more “intelligent” and who has the most intimate role as a Father-creator-organizer-progress enabler in our lives, than the God we worship is truly greater than us.

Either way, there has to be a first cause for the creation of the universe, and God is it. God and matter cannot both be infinite. God is the creator–everything else is created.

The early catholic church spent a few centuries working out this point of theology in regards to Christ. Since LDS church doesn’t make the same sharp distinctions between the nature of God and nature of man, there is considerably less urgency to make definitive statements where little has been revealed.

Much has been revealed. The bible does not lead us to believe that man is just a god in an infancy state. Though Jesus clearly teaches that above all, God is a father, in no way does that diminish the vast chasm between creature and creator.

And the urgency is that we must have a truthful foundation in our understanding of God before we can get on to the other beliefs of our religion.

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris,

I enjoyed your post and its spirited plea for me to correctly understand the nature of God. I don’t think it is particularly important to my salvation because I believe that God is sufficiently powerful to deliver on His promises to me. That is something I can accept on faith.

Now in recent times the LDS prophet has greatly muddied the waters on this issue.

President Hinckley called it like it is and it is not a recent phenomenom. I have looked at the historical record and there has always been diverse thought on the subject, an acknowledgement that little has been revealed about the Father’s past progression, and very little emphasis (in public discourse) on it.

But I recognize that LDS members have difficulty understanding the (lack of) doctrinal status of those teachings, so your alternative take on things has some merit.

I think the rest of our differences rest on whether God is anthromorphic (has a physical body) or if He can create ex nihilo or not. On both of these issues there is a solid RCC and LDS doctrinal stance. It slightly non-productive to get an LDS to debate “nebulous” LDS speculation. But you are doing a good job explaining why your Catholic assumptions make LDS arguments to not be persuasive to you.

Thanks,
fool

 

[ben_dy]

lhvm.org/ctbf/dialup.htm

Lets speak on this

God Bless

c-rcia,

I’ve not read further messages, so I’m not sure where the discussion has headed, but as your link is to a site that has a video about Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God, I am assuming that you’re looking at parallels in Armstrong/Smith & WCG/LDS views on the nature of God?

I’ll have to look into some old WCG material that was given to me by a friend many years ago. He was quite taken with Armstrong and the whole movement and I recall that he attended a ‘general conference’ of sorts every year - an annual gathering, I believe, which most adherents attended. I was of the impression that the church changed a great deal after Armstrong’s death - I’ll Google as well and see what I can find.

If I recall correctly you may have come across an interesting topic! I’ll read some messages first and see where this has been going thus far…

 

[ben_dy]

Chris-WA:

So Paul, now you have to decide for yourself whether you are going to agree with what your church taught in the past or is teaching now. President Hinkley has taught both.

Chris,

Do you think that it is fair to say that GBH - as living prophet - actually changed the doctrine on this? The 1994 quote is from - what - 5 months before Hinckley became president/prophet? While he hasn’t actually issued new revelation, these more recent quotes (the only I’ve been able to find where he discusses the doctrine) say “I don’t know” directly to the question, “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”

If Hinckley does not know if that is the current teaching or not, it seems that he ‘negates’ the doctrine, yet I know that many - if not most - LDS members of my age or older would certainly argue in favor of the doctrine that Paul has listed and likely argue that Hinckley’s silence and ‘not knowing’ are not statements of Hinckley in ‘prophet mode’ (I forget the LDS quote - a prophet is only a prophet when he is… something?).

I’ll keep reading and see if amgid has dropped in to clarify - I do think he’s more up-to-date, certainly, than my friends would be.

 

[ben_dy]

LittleDeb:

While I totally agree with you that President Hinkley should be standing up and proclaiming this belief proudly if that is what they believe, I would hesitate to use the secular media you quoted. I don’t trust the reliability of those two sources any further than I can throw them. I would not be surprised if he was misquoted.

I would, however, like to see the list previously posted appear in their Ensign magazine. Since this publication is entirely theirs it can be held up to scrutiny. But as you pointed out so well, it does appear as though it is still a denied doctrine since it is even danced around and dressed up their own conference report.

I am seeking a straight answer using LDS resources that states the information in this list. Thanks for the one from the '94 general conference. It does touch on it. I am looking forward to Paul’s response. This wasn’t addressed to me but it was very helpful. Thanks!

Deb,

The LDS church did charge Time magazine - from which the :I don’t know…" quotes were taken - with misquoting Hinckley in the 1997 cover story but the Time reporter was able to produce a transcript of the taped interview and there were only a few words dropped - repetitious “I don’t know”'s I believe that were dropped from the direct quote and Time, in the original printed story, indicated this ‘drop’ using ellipses. This is one source that I trust simply because there was an issue of misquotation suggested and the interviewer was able to produce the tape and transcript and Time stood by the reporting.

Getting a straight answer to some of the more confusing doctrine can be difficult - what Hinckley said at the GC in 1994 was spoken before he became president/prophet of the church and it could also be claimed that he was speaking only of his personal opinion as a man - and not as a prophet - in the subsequent interviews. amgid has a good ‘handle’ (as good as any active LDS that I’ve seen publicly posted) on current LDS doctrine so maybe he’ll jump in and let us know if there are public pronouncements which are current.

The latest edition of “Gospel Principles” published by the LDS church only goes so far as to say…

God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80).

…so there is an ‘official’ word, at least, on having “heavenly parents” which presents one aspect of God that Paul outlined as being the understood doctrine for many, if not most, LDS members - even if it is with some theological redaction.

I’ve not found anything in other regards to the other aspects of God from and LDS POV in any 21st century Ensign magazines, however.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Chris-WA:

And the urgency is that we must have a truthful foundation in our understanding of God before we can get on to the other beliefs of our religion.

God is certainly using you Chris of WA.

Your post is very clear and concise. When I think, or even talk about God as being anyhting other than sole Creator I find darkness. Only the true Christ can lead one into the light. But this can mean giving up a great deal for the love of Him alone. It can be very, very hard.

But well worth it.

www.catholic-rcia.com

 

[mormon_fool]

Ben,

I will try to help put Gordon B. Hinckley’s remarks in context. There has been little or no shift in doctrinal status of about 'God was a man like us". His 1994 conference address specifically discusses our’s (not God’s) progression and intentionally only quotes that part of the couplet. In his interview he is being asked about God’s past progression. Apples and oranges, two different concepts that are important to distinguish between. Man’s potential is described in LDS canon in clear terms, God’s pre-history is only found in the scriptures through a “glass darkly”.

Your quotes show you are trying to redact the former from the latter through inductive reason to blur the distinction. You insist many mormons observe our relationship with our Heavenly Parents and project this pattern backwards. So be it, but I don’t see this as particularly logical, just gap filling for the unknown. Theological redaction and mormon doctrine just don’t belong in the same sentence unless some contrasting is going on.

I did a frequency study on how often the “God was once a man” is taught is LDS publications and I see no tailing off after President Hinckley’s remarks. I have already linked to my list on another thread if you are interested.

I have seen the Time transcript and I believe Time took President Hinckley “out of context”. Read all about here from my friend Michael Fordham.

later,
fool

 

[ben_dy]

mormon fool:

Ben,

I will try to help put Gordon B. Hinckley’s remarks in context. There has been little or no shift in doctrinal status of about 'God was a man like us". His 1994 conference address specifically discusses our’s (not God’s) progression and intentionally only quotes that part of the couplet. In his interview he is being asked about God’s past progression. Apples and oranges, two different concepts that are important to distinguish between. Man’s potential is described in LDS canon in clear terms, God’s pre-history is only found in the scriptures through a “glass darkly”.

Your quotes show you are trying to redact the former from the latter through inductive reason to blur the distinction. You insist many mormons observe our relationship with our Heavenly Parents and project this pattern backwards. So be it, but I don’t see this as particularly logical, just gap filling for the unknown. Theological redaction and mormon doctrine just don’t belong in the same sentence unless some contrasting is going on.

I did a frequency study on how often the “God was once a man” is taught is LDS publications and I see no tailing off after President Hinckley’s remarks. I have already linked to my list on another thread if you are interested.

I have seen the Time transcript and I believe Time took President Hinckley “out of context”. Read all about here from my friend Michael Fordham.

later,
fool

fool,

Good to see you back (or maybe I’ve been MIA for a bit!)

You’re right - I did attempt to put Hinckley’s 1994 comments in a redacted sense without supplying the adequate background material: I purchased the JoD in PDF format ($10 - a deal!) and the ability to search, comment, etc., in Acrobat allows me to gather material and I should have cited that material rather than assuming that the contrasting themes from previous church authorities would be general knowledge. I was lazy there! And I’ll not attempt it now except to say that I believe that some LDS members - perhaps older members or those who are not up-to-date on what the church is and is not teaching - would certainly look at Hinckley’s use of the couplet (even partial use) to mean what it has historically meant since Snow brought it to life. My understanding was that the couplet was still indicative of LDS doctrine (and although I read the Time piece when it was first published, my knowledge of LDS doctrine and history was so sparse that I’m certain that the comments meant little to me - yet to say that I have an ‘understanding’ of current LDS doctrine NOW would be laughable: I am still in LDS doctrine kindergarten!

And so I remain in a state of confusion but I know you understand why. I get different answers to the same questions concerning LDS doctrine from those who seem to have a genuine faith in the LDS church yet have differing opinions as to what we Catholics would see as essentials of faith (or, contrastingly, NOT - we’re very good at saying “God only knows” when, we believe, only God knows!). As I think you said previously (or made allusion to) we want to apply the same structure to LDS theology as we do to Catholic and I’m not certain that can be done - I’m not even certain that it should be attempted: it may be a case of ‘apples & oranges’ as well.

I would appreciate a link to your list - I am bed-bound, bored, have not slept in days, and a bit grouchy and any new reading - on this issue, in particular - would be appreciated.

I’ll also take a look now at the FAIR article (although I may have read it - I don’t recall) although I thought Time had that one ‘nailed’: I’ll check out the opposing view!

I hope you understand that my personal goal in reading of the LDS faith is strictly an intellectual pursuit that I sometimes feel I am failing - NOT something to which I’m accustomed (save when I tried to learn to program using an OS called GODPOP - but that’s a different and very boring story!). In my failure, I believe that I am more apt to blame LDS doctrine rather than myself because it is a moving target - hard to pin down, for me, as reading LDS history is sometimes more damaging in trying to understand current doctrine than not: quite unlike reading the ECF’s and applying what IS applicable to Catholic doctrine.

Like Deb, I am looking for definitive answers - and that may not be the correct approach. I am going to go back and read the explanations of your understandings so I may be able to see an LDS ‘doctrinal thought process’ in action!

Thanks again - hope to continue this discussion (although I was hoping to get some Herbert Armstrong discussions going!),

 

[catholic-rcia]

Herbert Armstrong taught that he was Gods end time appointed prophet. He would say that Jesus was not as important as Christians have made Him out to be. That man can become a God just like Him, that this was the true Gospel. He would mock the Trinity. He predicted many things but when he predicted that Jesus would come in His lifetime and then died the hierarchy left behind began to question their Church’s teachings. But each was scared to tell the other in fear of great rejection from family and friends along with the loss of esteem and status. But when one did they found that they were not alone. So they laid it all on the line in pursuit of the truth. They discovered the true nature of God and their lives changed. They became Christians.

It was a huge structure in which more than 50% of it fell. This story really is one of the most inspiring stories I have witnessed in my lifetime. I have gone so far as to devote my website to this story because of their great devotion to God. I called the producers and they assured me that this video is for all Christians who would like to share the good news to all that have a distorted view of Christianity and the true Nature of God. This Video is for the Catholic, the Baptist and the Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian and so forth. For all Christians who want to better articulate what we have been given in Christ. These people have found something that many will never find un fortunately. A God that asks nothing in return accept to turn in His direction in order to be carried to His home forever. After watching this video and learning more about these souls I wrote this down below. It is from the World Wide Church of God, it is from Christ Himself. It really cannot be said any better. It truly is what has set them free from the Law, and placed them right in line with the Cross of our Lord and God.

“Authentic Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s not proven, it’s not dictated or mandated by our own performance, by how much we do, how often we do it. If God hadn’t sent Christ we would have no hope. Christ brought something that did away with the whole game, he brought the Gospel, the Gospel says all bets are off, trust me I have redeemed you. It’s that simple.” …Called to be Free

---

It is Satan that tells us that we have to be good enough, it is also him who takes pleasure when we feel we are not. This only teaches us to point at those who we feel are not as good as us in order to lift ourselves on what appears to be a higher plane so we can feel better about ourselvs, he spins us this way you know, all of us. But Christ tells us we will never be good enough as long as we fall for that lie and keep trying. Christ comes to us in our sinfulness, not when we think we are ready to accept Him. We come to Him first in our sin and He loves us in spite of it. It is in suffering with Him that we find Him and begin to count our blessing because we begin to only count on Him. If you can’t come to see yourself as a sinner, one that is no better than the other sinner, how can you ever come to really understand His love for you? For me? He wants us to step out of that game, it’s useless and we only find ourselves swimming is a very hostile river that has no other side to get to. Christ knows how to swim, only in Him can we rise above the water. It’s by taking His hand and believing in Him that we are set free. .that we are lifted to the Father.

---

God Bless*
*www.catholic-rcia.com

 

[ben_dy]

mormon fool:

I have seen the Time transcript and I believe Time took President Hinckley “out of context”. Read all about here from my friend Michael Fordham.

later,
fool

fool,

I had read Fordham’s response and think now, as I thought then, that there is no other explanation that rings true save that Hinckley was was ‘dodging’ the question, but I never questioned that his “I don’t know” responses indicated that he was unaware of LDS doctrine or current teachings - I believe he was simply caught a bit off-guard without a ready response.

So when Fordham writes, “The claim of the critics is that President Hinckley dodged the issue, and that he does not understand what the church has taught in the past.” I have to agree with the first part of the criticism and deny the latter as the way I read the piece.

Equally disingenuous, though, seems the churches comment about context:

“The quotation you reference was taken out of context. The statement was made in response to a question about the actual circumstances and background surrounding remarks given during the funeral services of a man named King Follet, not the doctrine of exaltation and the blessings that await those who will inherit the celestial kingdom.”… as in reading the transcript…

“Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah
Q: …about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”

…I see no question at all “about the actual circumstances and background surrounding remarks given during the funeral services of a man named King Follet” but rather the question, “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”

Fordham’s response to Hinckley’s “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it… I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.” is “That is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer.” leaves a bit to be desired only because he seems to be ‘dodging the dodge’. “I don’t know that we teach it,” does sound a bit confused - while Fordham’s response is certain, “we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us”.

One thing that frustrates me about FAIR (and I know I’ve said this too many times - and about FARMS as well) is that they seem to be unwilling to say that any living president can make a mistake although they are sometimes too quick on the draw when pointing out that past prophets/presidents have made mistakes when not speaking as prophets. It seems to me that the best apologetics is the truth - to say that Hinckley did seem to be dodging the question but to point out that does not mean that he is not knowledgeable of current LDS doctrine. WHEN this begins to bother me, however, I have to give it some credence to the faith of these folks in the inerrancy of the living prophet - perhaps they do believe that he is incapable of misspeaking. This type of inerrancy, of course, is so far removed from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that it is difficult for me to grasp…

I really don’t mean to go off on an ‘anti-Mormon’ diatribe, I am simply venting again (I did say I was grouchy and had not slept for days, didn’t I?) for that what seems to reach for apologetics yet falls terribly short. The refusal to admit human error seems akin to me, as a Catholic, protesting a comment that in the last years of his life, it was often difficult to understand Pope John Paul II when he spoke in public.

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

Where I am in agreement with Fordham is on two points. The first is when he contemplates the intentions of LDS critics (and, I would say, both professional and amateur anti-Mormons in general) and says, “This (failure to understand) is probably due to their eagerness to argue against the Church, instead of a desire to actually learn the truth about the Church.” I have found that attitude displayed on a number of anti-Mormon websites and, as a Catholic, am very much attuned to such attitudes as I have seen it so frequently displayed with anti-Catholic arguments. I also agree with him when he writes, “Those who do not attend Sunday School, Sacrament meeting, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, Ward Conference, Stake Conference, General Conference, or read the Ensign, scriptures, nor study LDS manuals, have no right to define for those that do, just what the beliefs of the members of the Church are.” But, again, my frustration increases as I wonder if this implies that one must be a LDS in order to understand what the definition of beliefs truly are? It’s obvious - as I think Chris first wrote - that the couplet could be understood as LDS doctrine at one time yet is no longer: if that is the case, then I can readily accept that and Fordham admits “we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.” Yet - and I’ll not go over the individual points - as you admit, as well, some LDS do still hold this couplet as an example of doctrine. And so things become confusing again.

The tone of the closing of the article is difficult, for me, to discern - “Perhaps those that criticize President Hinckley for what they think he understands about the nature of God should spend their time trying to understand the incomprehensible God they claim to believe in. After all, it is important for our eternal salvation to know God.” I have spent and will spend the remainder of my life attempting to know the God in which I believe but with every assurance that I cannot completely know God with my imperfect nature - that is one of the anticipatory joys of salvation, to know God - not something I believe I can fully achieve as I live, only what I hope and pray for when I die.

I am sure you will disagree with me but I am hoping that you can see where frustration sets in for those of us who would like to know what the LDS church teaches and the obstacles we face in achieving that goal. There are four main obstacles, I suppose… there is no church-sanctioned ‘catechism’, different LDS seem to have some fundamentally different beliefs, reading the discourses of now deceased LDS prophets and applying those words to today’s doctrine is verboten, and LDS apologetics is so radically different from that of other Christian sects that it seems, at times, insulting (and yet I do realize that LDS apologetics differ, too, in that they are meant primarily for the audience of the faithful and not, as in other sects, directed most specifically against detractors).

Again, I’ve rambled. I am frustrated - do you think that there’s any way to find relief? And don’t say just give up! I find the subject too fascinating, if only from a point of American history, to do that!

 

[StMarkEofE]

DeeAnn:

Ok, I listened to about 4 minutes of this and was really confused. What does Herbert Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God got to do with the topic?

DeeAnn

I always thought that Herbert Armstrong taught that the Holy Spirit was NOT the third person of the Blessed Trinity. He only espoused the Father and the Son as persons but not the Holy Spirit.

 

[mormon_fool]

Ben,

Thanks for your careful consideration of the Fordham article. I have been despairing that nobody seems to pay attention and contributing to such threads seems futile. But you have restored my faith somewhat and well as offered some meaty observations for me to mull over.

ben_dy:

I had read Fordham’s response and think now, as I thought then, that there is no other explanation that rings true save that Hinckley was was ‘dodging’ the question, but I never questioned that his “I don’t know” responses indicated that he was unaware of LDS doctrine or current teachings - I believe he was simply caught a bit off-guard without a ready response.

I agree with you that he was caught off gaurd and that he does indeed know what the teachings of the church have been. The “I don’t know’s” is what people say while they are stalling for time to collect their thoughts. Subtract them and we get some very true observations. 1) It hasn’t been taught in public discourse for a long time (not since '78). 2) It is not emphasized (I agree with this). 3) Pres. Hinckley understands the philosophy background of the KFD enough to know very little is known by anyone about the “once like us” concepts. To me that is exactly the right message to send to an audience that doesn’t grasp mormon basics like God’s anthromorphism and lack of ex nihilo creation powers. People who want to learn more can read Ostler, Hale, Barney, or Tvedtnes if they can handle it.

The church’s response is spot on. Pres. Hinckley should be allowed to clarify how he interpretted the question, which, since it brought it brought up the KFD, gave him an obligation to comment how well its background is understood. This question is implied even if it isn’t literally there. I would further the church’s “out of context” argument because the question directed him to comment on how frequently it is taught and with what emphasis. This is important information that got left out because Time made it seem Pres. Hinckley was personally uncertain whether it was true or not, rather than recalling how often it is taught.

In any event, it is demonstratable incorrect to say we don’t teach it at all, as my compiled list of about 35 references in the last 35 years. But Pres. Hinckley was on the spot and arguably none of my references would have immediately occured to him. As Pres. Hinckley continued speaking he implicitly corrected his “I don’t know that we teach it” by switching the subject to “emphasis” and qualifying his remarks about it not being a topic of any recent public discourse (general conference). Anything that hasn’t recently been mentioned in conference is obviously not a point of emphasis.

With that, I am going to have to object to word “dodge”.

Fordham’s response is certain, “we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us”.

I agree with Fordham here. The “just” makes all the difference. I have been essentially saying this since my first post on this thread. There are no statements that I have ever encountered require the Father’s past history to be exactly like ours. (For example having heavenly parents.) Thinking this way recalls chicken and the egg.

One thing that frustrates me about FAIR (and I know I’ve said this too many times - and about FARMS as well) is that they seem to be unwilling to say that any living president can make a mistake although they are sometimes too quick on the draw when pointing out that past prophets/presidents have made mistakes when not speaking as prophets.

That is because hindsight is 20/20. Tell me where Catholic Answers criticizes the current pope? I have seen Catholic Encyclopedia articles that point out the mistakes of past ones though. In general, FAIR does warn anyone who will listen not to treat leaders as infallible. True principles are being taught and it is up to individuals to apply them.

This type of inerrancy, of course, is so far removed from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility that it is difficult for me to grasp…

The Fordham article doesn’t speak to inerrancy. It is more about loyalty and giving someone’s remarks the most charitable and contextual read possible. It isn’t about facts unless we can become mind readers. Both of us have done exactly that with different results.

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

I have found that attitude displayed on a number of anti-Mormon websites and, as a Catholic, am very much attuned to such attitudes as I have seen it so frequently displayed with anti-Catholic arguments.

I admire your sense of balance and ability to mention out points of agreement. I know I tend to jump to things I disagree with, which must frustrate others to know end. You are a good example.

But, again, my frustration increases as I wonder if this implies that one must be a LDS in order to understand what the definition of beliefs truly are?

It isn’t impossible to repressent mormon beliefs in a way that is acceptable to mormons by a non-LDS, but it is rarely done.

As you admit, as well, some LDS do still hold this couplet as an example of doctrine. And so things become confusing again.

There is no question it is a doctrine in the loose sense of the word as a teaching of the church. Gerald Lund wrote in a 1982 Ensign that it is “acceptable” doctrine. It is still included in recent church publications. A stricter analysis considers how authorized the teaching is. It’s level of authority is below canonized doctrine found in the scriptures and hence is non-binding. Doctrine in the LDS church follows a waterfall model. There is a hierarchy of importance of truth. Teachings about Christ, salvation, and unique LDS truth claims are at the top of the waterfall and well attested to in LDS standard works. Stuff like speculating about the existence of a grandfather god is largely irrelevant and hence at the bottom.

Given my own frequency of teaching analysis, I have reject that there has been any recent change in where in the waterfall the couplet is, which is probably as high as it can be without being canonized. Any attempt elaborate on what the one half might mean, however is speculation.

I have spent and will spend the remainder of my life attempting to know the God in which I believe but with every assurance that I cannot completely know God with my imperfect nature - that is one of the anticipatory joys of salvation, to know God - not something I believe I can fully achieve as I live, only what I hope and pray for when I die.

Wow. Beautifully said!

Again, I’ve rambled. I am frustrated - do you think that there’s any way to find relief?

Well as you have stated, you are up against some tough obstacles. I would say carry on as you have been. Get good recommendations for books and articles covering the topics you are interested in. Draw conclusions about what mormons believe but try to also get a feel for the importance assigned to that particular belief. But be flexible enough to modify your conclusions as you get more information and feedback. An LDS missionary would advise a healthy dose of prayer to find peace in the midst of uncertainty while you pursue your righteous desires. I suspect they’d be preaching to the choir, though.

I find the subject too fascinating, if only from a point of American history, to do that!

Speaking of history there is some fascinating discussions of Joseph Smith going on at the Times and Seasons blog.