LDS / The Nature of God

[LittleDeb]

ben_dy:

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).

This is very well put, Ben. This is precisely my trouble when I try to get to the heart of an LDS doctrine. I know I am partially at fault since I do not read things by FAIR and FARMS. I tried just once and it was way too dry for me. I have enjoyed reading the Ensign at my best friend’s house. Upon mention of Gerald Lund I was reminded of how much I enjoyed his fictional novels, “The Work and the Glory.” Yes, this Catholic read all 9 of them. (8? It’s been many years now.) I know I should seek out the LDS sources on my own but I feel I have to weed through so much that is not relevent to the topic.

I really just want to know where to truly begin to understand the (basic) LDS concept of the nature of God. As a Catholic I strongly agree with the prior posting “It is better to know the Planner than the plan.” I am realizing in trying to understand LDS theology I am making a mistake of applying my own beliefs to the information instead of looking at it from a fresh approach. This is difficult. Anyone who understands my physical location might understand that I have been looking at this for a great many years. I love my LDS friends. I pray with them. I hope we are praying to the same God.

 

[amgid]

1. God had a beginning.

According to LDS theology, God is infinite and eternal, and has always been God:

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

D&C 76:

4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

1. God had parents.

There is nothing in LDS scripture teaching or implying that God had parents. How God came to be we do not know. See above.

1. God had a god above Him.

According to LDS doctrine, God does not have a god above Him:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

1. God has a wife who is a goddess, and together they create spirit children.

There is nothing in LDS scripture teaching that God has a wife. There are, however, biblical expressions that suggest that God must have a female counterpart. It is also logical to assume that if we have a “heavenly Father,” that we should also have a “heavenly Mother”. But the mechanism by which the spirits of men were created in the preexistence has not been revealed.

1. God is only the creator of this universe.

According to LDS doctrine, God is the creator of all visible and invisible worlds and universe(s):

D&C 93:

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

1. God is still increasing in intelligence and glory.

According to LDS theology, God is omniscient and omnipotent, knows all things, and is not increasing in knowledge or intelligence:

Moroni 7:

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

D&C 38:

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.
See also Moses 1:6, quoted above.

1. Men can also progress like God did . . .

Men can indeed “progress,” but not “like God did”. There is nothing in LDS scripture that says that God “progressed”.

. . . and become gods themselves.

The doctrine of the deification of man is indeed taught in LDS scripture. It is also biblical and believed in by the early Christians.

amgid

 

[majick275]

and yet we see in D&C 132 that the term “everlasting to everlasting” doesn’t really mean that.

The lawyer speak that GBH used to “waffle” on this issue is similar to that which was used in the manifesto. We see a church president claiming to be a prophet who leads by direct revelation in both cases not really saying anything.

Joseph Smith got up in front of the LDS church in General conference and gave his “King Follett Sermon”. This was not speculation. He was very clear in claiming that God was once a man with parents, a God of his own and that men may become Gods like him.

This has never been denounced or repudiated in any way by any subsequent “prophet”. To claim that it’s not doctrine because GBH says he “doesn’t know” seems pretty lame. That it isn’t in the “standard works” isn’t really true either. The “supporting materials” are there and many things that ARE LDS doctrine are not contained in scripture. (Temple Endowment for one)

The current LDS Gospel Doctrine lesson manual (you can read it on www.LDS.org) certainly DOES teach this.

The LDS doctrine of eternal progression as described on this thread has been taught from JS on down to the present. I am not surprised though that some distance from this blasphemy and either attempt the cognitive dissonance of being a cafeteria mormon or (worse) being a “milk before meat” missionary who hopes to focus on the less controversial teachings until someone becomes a believer.

This doctrine teaches that the “increase” or “progression” that God experiences is based on his children establishing their own kingdoms thus enlarging his overall dominion.

I agree that scripture (even LDS) contradicts this but then there are many LDS doctrines and practices that are contradicted by scripture. They claim that the current prophet can always “change the rules” by revelation from God.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

According to LDS theology, God is infinite and eternal, and has always been God:

D&C 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

D&C 76:

4 From eternity to eternity he is the same, and his years never fail.

Moses 1:

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

There is nothing in LDS scripture teaching or implying that God had parents. How God came to be we do not know. See above.

According to LDS doctrine, God does not have a god above Him:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

There is nothing in LDS scripture teaching that God has a wife. There are, however, biblical expressions that suggest that God must have a female counterpart. It is also logical to assume that if we have a “heavenly Father,” that we should also have a “heavenly Mother”. But the mechanism by which the spirits of men were created in the preexistence has not been revealed.

According to LDS doctrine, God is the creator of all visible and invisible worlds and universe(s):

D&C 93:

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

According to LDS theology, God is omniscient and omnipotent, knows all things, and is not increasing in knowledge or intelligence:

Moroni 7:

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

D&C 38:

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.

See also Moses 1:6, quoted above.

Men can indeed “progress,” but not “like God did”. There is nothing in LDS scripture that says that God “progressed”.

The doctrine of the deification of man is indeed taught in LDS scripture. It is also biblical and believed in by the early Christians.

amgid

Amgid, I agree that LDS scripture seems to indicate what you have said. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders did not limit their teaching only to what is contained in LDS scripture. The prophet not only is there to reveal scripture, but also to interpret it for the church. I don’t understand how you are able to ignore their teachings on this issue. How do you deal with this:“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!..It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible…” (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

To my knowledge, the teaching that God was once a man has never been formally repudiated. Has any prophet really come out and said that JS, BY, etc were dead wrong on this issue? If not, why not? Why not clear up the confusion?

 

[Chris-WA]

ben_dy:

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?”

I really don’t know. It’s clear that JS, BY, and others taught that God was once a man, and did so from their office as prophet. The tone of their statements certainly doesn’t support the idea that they thought they were speculating. They taught it as fact. GBH, on the other hand, has publicly denied that the church still teaches this, leaving us all very confused regarding the official teaching of the LDS church. He doesn’t explicitly say they were wrong, but simultaneously seems to deny the validity of their teaching on this matter. Why is this so? I think GBH knows very well that JS, BY, and others taught some weird things about God, and he also knows it is a matter of public record. But he can’t outright say they were wrong because to do so would question their status as true prophets. So GBH is doing this balancing act of trying to maintain the credibiltiy of his founding prophet (and successors) while at the same time indirectly denying what they taught because he knows it was wrong.

Now, if today’s LDS claim that JS, BY, and others were wrong in teaching that God was once a man, there needs to be some follow-through. Because if those men were wrong on this very important issue, then what else were they wrong about? Some LDS say that only what is found in scripture can be considered doctrine, but I think that is more of a convenient escape for dismissing controversial statements than it is a way to honestly deal with a problem.

So an LDS person who explores this issue is in a tricky spot. If he rejects Joseph Smith’s teaching on this topic, then he must admit that JS the prophet made a serious doctrinal error on a very basic and foundational issue, which opens the door to further problems. If he accepts the teaching of Joseph Smith in its entirety, he maintains the credibilty of JS but is left with the problem that the current prophet officially does not support such teaching. Granted, most LDS will never explore this issue at all because they are not aware of the problem.

Now I have read Amgid’s scriptural response to this problem. He seems to be in the “scriptural doctrine” camp that says that if it’s not directly in scripture, then it isn’t doctrine regardless of what the prophets have taught. I find this approach troubling, however, because that leaves the door wide open for a prophet to teach anything he wants and the people don’t have to believe it unless it gets included in the scriptures. Is this really how we want to regard the prophet?

 

[majick275]

GBH never denied this doctrine. He said he didn’t know that it was taught or emphasized. (current Gospel Doctrine Manual says it is), He said we don’t know much about it…maybe, depends on your definitions. He clintoned this issue in an interview. We all know it’s taught and always has been by LDS.

Now what I thinkChris brings up is the balancing act of current prophet denouncing doctrine of previous prophet. The most glaring example is Adam-God doctrine. BY taught this as prophet during general conference and it’s right there in the JoD. (JoD by the way is still used as a reference for many lessons in Gospel Doctrine AND Priesthood manuals. Now if THAT’s the nature of God for LDS there are HUGE problems. That Spencer kimball denounced this makes you wonder about BY as a prophet and who “really” leads teh LDS church by “revelation”.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Amgid, I agree that LDS scripture seems to indicate what you have said. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders did not limit their teaching only to what is contained in LDS scripture.

Yes, you are right. In those days religion was more charismatic than it is today, and people tended to speculate about gospel doctrine much more than they are inclined to do nowadays, and sometimes they were guilty of allowing their speculations to be taught as though it were gospel truth. Luckily those days are gone, and present day leadership of the Church has a better handle on what is justifiable to be taught and what is not. That is why they advise Church members to stick close to scriptural doctrine, and to test the validity of all doctrines, regardless of where they come from, by that standard.

The prophet not only is there to reveal scripture, but also to interpret it for the church. I don’t understand how you are able to ignore their teachings on this issue.

They are indeed, and by and large their teachings on various subjects have been inspirational and uplifting, and have taught correct principles. The number of instances where they have seriously erred has been very small, considering the volume of output and length of time involved. Joseph Smith in particular was very cautious about what he taught, and apart from the King Follett discourse I don’t know of any other instances where he allowed his imagination to get ahead of his sound judgment. We never said that prophets must be infallible. Why you ignore the hundreds of thousands of lines of good and sound principles that they taught, and like to latch on to a few lines of speculation, and blow it out of all proportion, is a question that you are best able to answer.

How do you deal with this:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...." (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

I deal with it in the same way that Gordon B. Hinckley did in his now well known television interview. We don’t now the circumstances under which Joseph Smith spoke those words. He was constantly under pressure from his numerous enemies outside the Church, as well as from many apostates within the Church. He was undoubtedly speaking under a lot of those pressures at that time, and relaxed his discipline and allowed his imagination to get ahead of his judgment. Joseph Smith never claimed to be infallible. He said: “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations that I have taught” (Teachings, p 368). I don’t know why you insist that he should be; or why you ignore all the correct principles that he taught, and latch on to a few minor instances where under pressure he may have made some unguarded comments. His Teachings are 400 pages long. The number of instances that he made comments that are speculative in nature are very rare—and ultimately, it is his canonized scriptures that really counts.

To my knowledge, the teaching that God was once a man has never been formally repudiated.

That is right; it hasn’t been because it does not need to be. We just don’t know how God came to be, so why speculate? Gordon B. Hinckley has said all the needs to be said about it. He is wise enough to know that he should not be drawn into speculation about something that God has chosen not to revel. He has said that he doesn’t know much about it (i.e. about how God came to be); and also that nobody else knows much about it; and therefore he refuses to be drawn into speculation. That is a correct course to follow when knowledge has not been revealed about something.

Has any prophet really come out and said that JS, BY, etc were dead wrong on this issue? If not, why not?

They have not, for the reason explained above. I admire Gordon B. Hinckley for refusing to be drawn into speculation about something that God has chosen not to reveal anything. We just don’t know how God came to be. Why make definitive assertions about something that we don’t know about?

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

Why not clear up the confusion?

What confusion? The confusion exists only in your mind, not mine. I simply refuse to be drawn into speculation about something which God has chosen not to reveal. Was it not Moses that wrote: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” (Deuteronomy 29:29.) So why speculate about something we don’t know? I like what the Lord told Job:

Job 38:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
There is so much that we don’t know, compared to the little that we do know, that it is unwise to make definitive assertions about something that God has chosen not to reveal. Gordon B Hinckley has already stated that we no longer teach this doctrine, because we recognize it as being speculative in nature rather than a revelation; and beyond that it is not necessary to make any definitive assertions.

amgid

 

[Kristina_P]

catholic-rcia:

DeeAnn you need to watch the whole Video, It is free to watch in its entirety from the site I gave. Even if you just watch the small trailor you will understand why I was moved to place it on this posting. You would not be asking me the question you asked if you watched. This video shows one of the most honest and compelling of conversions that you will ever witness. They are not Catholics, but they have found Christ. They used Catholic Doctrine to find Him. They are now part of the One True Vine, brothers and sisters within the One Body of Christ. His Church on earth and in heaven.

I hate to be nitpicky, but I’d like to point out that some of what you’ve just said is borderline heretical (the idea of an invisible church, etc.). Plenty of what was said toward the end of that short video was heretical. I do think that the reexamination of their beliefs and subsequent jettisoning of lots of really-really heretical and just plain wacky stuff is great, though.

If I were a Mormon, I would be insulted by your directing me to this video. Basically, it seems that you’re implying that Mormons know that their teachings about the nature of God are flawed but that they’re continuing to preach and pretend to believe these teachings out of fear and financial interest. It looks like you’re suggesting they watch this video, see the example of the Worldwide Church of God, and gain courage from it to follow suit. Am I missing something here?

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

I really don’t know. It’s clear that JS, BY, and others taught that God was once a man, and did so from their office as prophet. The tone of their statements certainly doesn’t support the idea that they thought they were speculating. They taught it as fact. GBH, on the other hand, has publicly denied that the church still teaches this, leaving us all very confused regarding the official teaching of the LDS church. He doesn’t explicitly say they were wrong, but simultaneously seems to deny the validity of their teaching on this matter. Why is this so?

The reasons are those I expressed in my previous post above. It is unwise to make definitive assertions about something that God has chosen not to reveal.

I think GBH knows very well that JS, BY, and others taught some weird things about God, and he also knows it is a matter of public record. But he can’t outright say they were wrong because to do so would question their status as true prophets. So GBH is doing this balancing act of trying to maintain the credibiltiy of his founding prophet (and successors) while at the same time indirectly denying what they taught because he knows it was wrong.

If you are determined to read that into it, there is nothing that I or anybody else can do to stop you. But if you want my views on it, the answer is the same as the one I gave above: it is unwise to make definitive assertions about something that God has chose not to reveal.

Now, if today’s LDS claim that JS, BY, and others were wrong in teaching that God was once a man, there needs to be some follow-through. Because if those men were wrong on this very important issue, then what else were they wrong about? Some LDS say that only what is found in scripture can be considered doctrine, but I think that is more of a convenient escape for dismissing controversial statements than it is a way to honestly deal with a problem.

If you insist on maintaining such a view, then there isn’t anything that I can say to that. This is no longer a matter of debate. It is a question of how you choose to view things. The underlying logic behind your assertion is that prophets must be infallible. I am afraid you are wrong. There is nothing in LDS scripture or in the Bible that says that they should be. See the response I gave to Brad Haas in the thread called: “Quote from LDS about Eternal Progression”.

So an LDS person who explores this issue is in a tricky spot. If he rejects Joseph Smith’s teaching on this topic, then he must admit that JS the prophet made a serious doctrinal error on a very basic and foundational issue, which opens the door to further problems. If he accepts the teaching of Joseph Smith in its entirety, he maintains the credibilty of JS but is left with the problem that the current prophet officially does not support such teaching. Granted, most LDS will never explore this issue at all because they are not aware of the problem.

I am afraid that is a figment of your imagination. I am LDS, and I assure you that I am not in a “tricky situation”. I decide what is “tricky” for me, you don’t. The answer is the same as given above.

Now I have read Amgid’s scriptural response to this problem. He seems to be in the “scriptural doctrine” camp that says that if it’s not directly in scripture, then it isn’t doctrine regardless of what the prophets have taught.

Wrong again. The whole Church is in the “scriptural doctrine” camp. I didn’t invent that idea out of my own head. I follow the counsel that we have been given by our leaders. That is what they have counseled us to do.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

I find this approach troubling, however, because that leaves the door wide open for a prophet to teach anything he wants and the people don’t have to believe it unless it gets included in the scriptures. Is this really how we want to regard the prophet?

That is not what that principle amounts to. LDS doctrine clearly states that when the leadership of the Church speak, “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4).You are confusing “scripture” with “new doctrine”. The whole of the Bible is scripture; but only a tiny fraction of it amounts to new and innovative doctrine. The process by which new doctrine, practice, or procedure is introduced into the Church is strictly controlled, and only the First Presidency is able to do so following certain strict guidelines.

Another principle that you are oblivious to is that God’s true church is not a church of “blind obedience”. The expression “as moved upon by the Holy Ghost” is significant here. Just as those who “teach” must be “inspired by the Holy Ghost,” those who are taught must also be inspired by the same Spirit in order to discern whether something that is taught is indeed inspired or not. That is what in LDS scripture the Lord has counseled church members to do. See D&C 50:13-25. You probably come from a religious tradition of “blind obedience,” therefore you have difficulty grasping the ideas behind what we teach.

amgid

 

[majick275]

LDS scriptures change to match the doctrines. This has always been so.

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations that I have taught” (Teachings, p 368).

Here is a perfect example of JS making it very clear that LDS must believe in his revelations. That would include the King follett sermon. We DO know the circumstances that was given in . It was General conference in front of thousands of LDS. No “pressure” from enemies of the church. No speculation.

Why is it that LDS continue to go down the same path as scientology and deny what they teach?

We can see waht the doctrine is and it’s absolute blasphemy.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Kristina P.:

I hate to be nitpicky, but I’d like to point out that some of what you’ve just said is borderline heretical (the idea of an invisible church, etc.). Plenty of what was said toward the end of that short video was heretical.

Are you saying that our protestant brothers and sisters are not part of the Body of Christ?

Would this be the “Salvation Assured part” that you are referring to?
Kristina P.:

I do think that the reexamination of their beliefs and subsequent jettisoning of lots of really-really heretical and just plain wacky stuff is great, though…

Kristina P.:

If I were a Mormon, I would be insulted by your directing me to this video. Basically, it seems that you’re implying that Mormons know that their teachings about the nature of God are flawed but that they’re continuing to preach and pretend to believe these teachings out of fear and financial interest.

No…I would not sterotype like this. But you are close. Many do know this and feel these things but do not act, brush it aside and move on, mostly out of the fear of being different, the fear of losing freinds and even close family members.

But I beleive this is just a few, not the many. Some do find their way to Christ when they can gather the humble courage to do so. I am with them, I know them. (RCIA)
Kristina P.:

It looks like you’re suggesting they watch this video, see the example of the Worldwide Church of God, and gain courage from it to follow suit. Am I missing something here?

Yes and no, I give this video to those who have already stepped over the veil and our already searching. Those ones love this video, it confirms what they have been feeling all along. This is the key message from this video

Quote from Called to be free
“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.”
End of Quote

I have been catholic for six years now and this is the best words I have heard of yet on telling another about hope in Christ, in such few words. We as Catholics can gain much in listening to others. So I guess you can say that I found Christ’s message in a clear voice and it came out of this video, it came from a heretical Church that transformed. I will take anything that has to do with Jesus no matter in what form, or what sect when it is without any other motive except tp bring Christ to others. This video, the World Wide Church of God gets a huge thanks from this Catholic because it has helped my own faith.

God Bless

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Yes, you are right. In those days religion was more charismatic than it is today, and people tended to speculate about gospel doctrine much more than they are inclined to do nowadays, and sometimes they were guilty of allowing their speculations to be taught as though it were gospel truth.

But we’re not talking about just any “people” here, we’re talking about the founder of your religion, a man who claimed to be a prophet, seer, and revelator. Does he have to be infallible in every little thing? No. Does he need to preach correct doctrine about the nature of God? Absolutely! That is a BIG thing, not some small detail.

Why you ignore the hundreds of thousands of lines of good and sound principles that they taught, and like to latch on to a few lines of speculation, and blow it out of all proportion, is a question that you are best able to answer.

Because those who would lead others astray usually are great imitators of the truth. they get many things right, but the stuff they get wrong can take you way in the wrong direction. Something will be askew, and no question, the King Follet discourse is more than that.

I deal with it in the same way that Gordon B. Hinckley did in his now well known television interview. We don’t now the circumstances under which Joseph Smith spoke those words. He was constantly under pressure from his numerous enemies outside the Church, as well as from many apostates within the Church. He was undoubtedly speaking under a lot of those pressures at that time, and relaxed his discipline and allowed his imagination to get ahead of his judgment.

This is your speculation. Don’t make excuses for Joseph Smith.

That is right; it hasn’t been because it does not need to be. We just don’t know how God came to be, so why speculate? Gordon B. Hinckley has said all the needs to be said about it. He is wise enough to know that he should not be drawn into speculation about something that God has chosen not to revel. He has said that he doesn’t know much about it (i.e. about how God came to be); and also that nobody else knows much about it; and therefore he refuses to be drawn into speculation. That is a correct course to follow when knowledge has not been revealed about something.

Actually we do know. God simply always has been the way He is now. We as Catholics can definitively say that God was never a man. I’m out of time now, but I will respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

What confusion? The confusion exists only in your mind, not mine. I simply refuse to be drawn into speculation about something which God has chosen not to reveal.

If God has chosen not to reveal it, than Joseph Smith has some explaining to do. Joseph certainly did not state that he was making this up on his own.

There is so much that we don’t know, compared to the little that we do know, that it is unwise to make definitive assertions about something that God has chosen not to reveal. Gordon B Hinckley has already stated that we no longer teach this doctrine, because we recognize it as being speculative in nature rather than a revelation; and beyond that it is not necessary to make any definitive assertions.

That would be all fine and dandy if JS, BY, and others had kept their mouth shut about what you call “speculation.” They certainly didn’t see it that way.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

I am afraid that is a figment of your imagination. I am LDS, and I assure you that I am not in a “tricky situation”. I decide what is “tricky” for me, you don’t. The answer is the same as given above.

They are in a tricky situation if they honestly evaluate this issue based on the facts and not on a “viewpoint.” Unfortunately, most are willing to overlook anything in the negative column regarding past LDS leaders no matter what they said or did. They get a free pass because you already “know” they were genuine prophets.

Wrong again. The whole Church is in the “scriptural doctrine” camp. I didn’t invent that idea out of my own head. I follow the counsel that we have been given by our leaders. That is what they have counseled us to do.

Maybe you should let Paul know that.

 

[catholic-rcia]

From the Church / Catechism / What we Believe about God

The following is From here:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=+Catechism&s=SS

[296](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/296.htm’) We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely “out of nothing”:145

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.146

[297](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/297.htm’) Scripture bears witness to faith in creation “out of nothing” as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:

I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.147
[298](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/298.htm’) Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them,148 and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist."149 And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.150

 

[mormon_fool]

Kristina P.:

If I were a Mormon, I would be insulted by your directing me to this video. Basically, it seems that you’re implying that Mormons know that their teachings about the nature of God are flawed but that they’re continuing to preach and pretend to believe these teachings out of fear and financial interest. It looks like you’re suggesting they watch this video, see the example of the Worldwide Church of God, and gain courage from it to follow suit. Am I missing something here?

As a mormon, I am not personally offended about the video. Since neither Catholics or Mormons are the protagonists in the video or remotely involved it has to be translated or re-applied into something meaningful. Mormonism no more fits the WCOG mold more than the Catholic church does. Both of our traditions have survived the death of our founding apostles and prophets and even picked up steam. It is interesting to see a whole church convert *en masse (well almost anyway, a lot splinter groups still hold on to some distinct Armstrongisms) *to another ideology. Reminds me of the early LDS missionary efforts both in Ohio and England on a smaller scale where whole congregations would convert.

I think this success will help reform the Protestant countercult industry. It seems to me that so much of their efforts and Christian apologetics in general are aimed at boundary maintainence. They aren’t usually about engaging critics, just putting on a show for their contributors. Unfortunately the organization (Living Hope Ministries) producing the video seems to have carried on with the old ways, producing an anti-mormon video using shoddy methodology to compare the evidences for the Bible and Book of Mormon.

I like the idea of denominations taking a doctrinal inventory and an internal evaluation. In some ways the former RLDS church now Communities of Christ has done so and become more Protestant. They, like the WCoG, lost a lot of their members to splinter groups by doing so. But I think if more denominations will re-evaluate their teachings on the nature of God, they will return to the early Christian basics of an anthromorphic God who does not create out of nothing.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

double post

–fool

 

[Brad_Haas]

Today I attended a stake play in honor of the life of Joseph Smith. At the end, they played a video of Gordon B. Hinckley. It looked like a general conference. He said something along the lines of Joseph Smith learned more about the “nature of deity” than all of the men who had studied and disputed in the centuries before him.