Mormons and the Trinity

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I will compromise with you on this and state that my definition of Trinitarianism is representative of Catholic teaching.

Deal.

When a church proclaims a doctrine by divine revelation and publishes canonized scripture supporting it, then changes the doctrine and edits out the supporting scripture it is hard to consider it “development”.

You appear to discussing the LoF, which is a red herring. The LoF is not in the current set of scripture and hence doesn’t represent current binding doctrine. The LoF makes no claims to being a revelation.and it the procedures in canonizing it were irregular. Regardless, it has been decanonized and is irrelevant to your attempt to try to make definite statements about current LDS beliefs when I have repeatedly pointed out different ways of interpretting LDS source material. And let us not even go into how I disagree with your interpretation of the LoF.

Ah but here is the difference. My examples were duly set apart leaders of the LDS church addressing the members of their church for the express purpose of eliminating their confusion. .

Some of your examples were from the Seer and JoD. The Seer is a disavowed source for doctrine. You routinely trump up whether the speaker is claiming divine revelation. Even if part of the principles they base their opinion on were revealed or in the scriptures, this does not mean they are not drawing inferences that are binding on the rest of the church.

In the absence of binding doctrine it is the most cogent treatments that matter which is why I bring up Ostler.

I am floored on two levels. First is the concept of just what is “binding”. The “standard works” and consistent words and actions by the first presidency of the LDS church make it clear that when “the brethren” as a group tell the church what is “true” or what they should be doing then it is binding.

There is consistent teaching that the only the LDS standard works are binding.

B. H. Roberts, a former LDS General Authority:

      The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing     to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has     officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon,     the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted     and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, *and are the only sources of     absolute appeal for our doctrine*.

As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is–What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.

True there are caveats that it cannot CONFLICT with scripture (of course LDS scriptures change, see above)
but then it is claimed that the Lord would never allow them to lead the church astray.

Thanks for granting that caveat, the caveat alone can appealed when LDS members take execption to you making definitive statements about LDS beliefs, which are felt to be still open for exploration.

There is a big difference between believing in fallible leaders and believing that they won’t be allowed to bind the church with a seriousness doctrinal error so as the lead church astray, i.e. lose its priesthood keys.

The other level here is the very idea that LDS leaders would promote false doctrines/practices or even allow sheer speculation to be “viewed” as doctrine and then later when the mistake was obvious they just stop talking about it.

Just like some ECF doctrine doesn’t get talked about in the RCC. And again I note that nobody is going around declaring old teachings “false”. I reject your black and white labeling of outdated teachings on inconsequential matters, those matters that further light and knowledge lets us see things from a different angle on or not felt the need to emphasize.

I also believe I have given evidence that eternal progression as I have explained IS in fact in the lesson materials has been used in “recent teaching cycles”.

I think I have demonstrated what is in recent teaching cycles and what is majick’s interpretation. To review: nothing about God having a Father God, nothing about men that become gods get their own planets to populate, nothing about God not always being God.

–fool

 

[majick275]

but if you go to LDS.org and look at their curent Gospel Principles Manual (a really good read for the subject of eternal progression) you will find this in chapter 47 Exaltation:

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).
Not outdated and CERTAINLY NOT inconsequential. You would find in RCIA classes that no doctrines/practices are of limits. My wifes class dealt straight up with the inquisition, sale of indulgences, etc. ECF’s aren’t just “not talked about”. Their is a differnce though. Many ECF’s were theologians and such. None claimed to be a prophet in the LDS sense. Further the RCC has proclaimed what is doctrine in the catechism. You can easily see for yourself.

Many CURRENT LDS teaching manuals quote from the JoD. I find it somewhat hypocritical that you give us a quote from B.H. Roberts (never president of the LDS church) in a “3rd tier” setting to show that statements of the LDS leaders which are not included in the standard works are non-binding. The actions of current LDS prove that there are many “binding” items of practice and doctrine that are not in the standard works. (although they, like eternal progression, don’t appear to LDS to be in conflict with them) Examples abound in the Temple. In any event I found the best reference on this to be the one that amgid provided which was not from the seer or JoD but was published for the express purpose of pointing out to the LDS church just what the doctrine is. I have shown you that position has never been renounced or even “corrected” by newer leaders. (GBH evasiveness notwithstanding) Further you can see that this is still taught today. Maybe it’s taught in slightly more subtle wording so that folks can pretend it’s what they want it to be but I don’t thik the quote I provided from Gospel Principles manual leaves much doubt.

as to the LoF they WERE in the standard works and were put their with common consent from the membership. Their REMOVAL was irregular as that was NOT done by common consent. That’s not the only example of LDS scriptures “changing” though. I find it problematic that one can say that LDS prophets receive revelation from God as to what is/isn’t scripture and then “decanonize” things later. It seems one of those two events had to be false. (or both)

 

[mormon_fool]

quote=majick275
I don’t see any LDS leader claiming levels or tiers of doctrine. I think that this particular case is certainly authoratative due to the facts that it comes from the entire first presidency AND quroum of twelve apostles AND specifically claims the information has been made known by divine revelation.
[/quote]

Don’t forget the last AND. AND accepted by the members of the church as binding scripture, otherwise it exists in a tier of doctrine that can be characterized as “official, but not binding”. It doesn’t matter that you have no idea how to classify LDS doctrine (as is obvious from your attempts to do so), what matters is that the body of statements by GA’s can be analyzed and some general categories of doctrine are readily apparent.

I also think MANY LDS absolutely believe in this and find it critical to their “testimony”.

Believe. yes. Find critical to their testimony. no.

I think it borders on deceptive to claim that this isn’t “emphasized”.

Or truth, as my exhaustive analysis of recent publications quoting the Snow couplet showed that I posted awhile back.

Not speculation but specifically taught by multiple LDS prophets and apostles. In any case I find your proposal equally blasphemous.

How can the very nature of God and the purpose of our life on earth be considered of secondary importance?

The passages in the scriptures discussing these topics are important. Majick’s favorite non-canonical proof quotes and interpretation of them often mix primary and secondary details. Fool carefully distinguishes between the primary and secondary, majick consistently lumps them together.

The teachings though as directly quoted from Brigham Young were denounced though.

That is not quite right, according Brigham Young researcher Eldon Watson:

At the time this statement was made in the 1976 Priesthood conference, I was serving on a priesthood committee under the direction of Elder Mark E. Petersen. We were at that time working with a number of people who believed the Adam-God theory, and our committee wanted to know more precisely what President Kimball meant by his statement, so through Elder Petersen we made an appointment with him and asked him. In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young’s words by present day apostates and fundamentalists - their understanding of what Brigham Yong meant is false.

This shows two things. First, LDS prophets denounce what they believe is false doctrine. They don’t just stop talking about it.

This happens very rarely. You can’t use this as an excuse to treat old, non-circulating stuff as authoratative.

Secondly it shows that Brigham Young was a false prophet even by LDS standards.

We all know it’s the doctrine of the LDS church.

One of us doesn’t.

 

[majick275]

“current teaching cycle” references:
Priesthood/Relief Society Manual (teachings of John Taylor)
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/mpandrs.htm/john%20taylor.htm/chapter%201%20the%20origin%20and%20destiny%20of%20mankind.htm

Aaronic Priesthood manual
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/aaronic%20priesthood.htm/ap2.htm/1%20who%20am%20i.htm

Priesthood/Relief Society Manual (teachings of Jospeh F. Smith)
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/mpandrs.htm/joseph%20f.%20smith.htm/chapter%2037%20sons%20and%20daughters%20of%20the%20eternal%20father.htm

Priesthood/Relief Society Manual (teachings of Brigham Young)

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/mpandrs.htm/brigham%20young.htm/38%20the%20spirit%20world.htm

there’s plenty more and I posted the links rather than the quotes so that context could be ascetained as well as for the sake of space.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

but if you go to LDS.org and look at their curent Gospel Principles Manual (a really good read for the subject of eternal progression) you will find this in chapter 47 Exaltation:

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

I have already addressed how KFD can be interpretted that God was always God.

Not outdated and CERTAINLY NOT inconsequential

Very inconsequential. It doesn’t affect my salvation to reason from the scriptures and come to other conclusions.

. You would find in RCIA classes that no doctrines/practices are of limits. My wifes class dealt straight up with the inquisition, sale of indulgences, etc. ECF’s aren’t just “not talked about”. Their is a differnce though. Many ECF’s were theologians and such. None claimed to be a prophet in the LDS sense.

Exactly. And LDS prophets don’t always claim to be prophets. There are to make their teachings authorative just like there were ways for ECFs to meet together in ecumenical councils and formulate authorative creeds.

Further the RCC has proclaimed what is doctrine in the catechism. You can easily see for yourself.

Likewise you can easily see where canonized LDS doctrine is found.

Many CURRENT LDS teaching manuals quote from the JoD.

This doesn’t excuse using non-currently quoted JOD texts in current manual quotes as being equally representative of LDS belief. The correlation gets to select what to propagate and what to not emphasize.

I

find it somewhat hypocritical that you give us a quote from B.H. Roberts (never president of the LDS church) in a “3rd tier” setting to show that statements of the LDS leaders which are not included in the standard works are non-binding.

Only the LDS scriptures have been accepted through common consent as binding; this should be enough by itself to prove it.

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.

George Q. Cannon, 1st Presidency Member, General Conference 1880

Show me any other time acceptance of a non-scriptural text is described as “binding” in LDS history. However since I can’t prove a negative, I let obstute observer B.H. Roberts say the obvious for me. Many others can be summoned to say the same thing.

as to the LoF they WERE in the standard works and were put their with common consent from the membership.

Common consent technically requires all the quorums to be properly repressented as is clear from D&C 107. When the leader of the top quorum is MIA, it is adequate grounds for reconsideration.

Their REMOVAL was irregular as that was NOT done by common consent.

Didn’t need be if it wasn’t put in by common consent or claim to revelation in the first place.

–fool

 

[majick275]

So let me see if I understand your position correctly:

LDS Prophets and Apostles do not speak binding doctrine unless their words are canonized and thus anything they say that doesn’r end up in the “standard works” can be disregarded as speculation by the members.

Canonized statements can later be “decanonized” OR previously uncanonized statements can later be canonized and that’s okay. Canonized scripture can be revised/edited as the first presidency sees fit.

“2nd and 3rd Tier” sources of LDS doctrine can be used to teach members and/or potential converts eternal truths but cannot be used to establish binding doctrine.

Doctrine contained in the standard works can be interpreted by various members a variety of ways and that’s okay.

Practices are directed in non-canonized works and doctrine revealed in these as well that is essential to exaltation (Temple Ceremony) but only what is contained in the standard works is binding.

I was hoping you would defend the doctrine rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

So let me see if I understand your position correctly:

LDS Prophets and Apostles do not speak binding doctrine unless their words are canonized and thus anything they say that doesn’r end up in the “standard works” can be disregarded as speculation by the members.

Canonized statements can later be “decanonized” OR previously uncanonized statements can later be canonized and that’s okay. Canonized scripture can be revised/edited as the first presidency sees fit.

“2nd and 3rd Tier” sources of LDS doctrine can be used to teach members and/or potential converts eternal truths but cannot be used to establish binding doctrine.

Doctrine contained in the standard works can be interpreted by various members a variety of ways and that’s okay.

Amen!

Practices are directed in non-canonized works and doctrine revealed in these as well that is essential to exaltation (Temple Ceremony) but only what is contained in the standard works is binding.

Practices and doctrines are entirely different animals. There are enough passages in the LDS scripture to establish what the essential practices for salvation are (some explicit, some implied, or some a pre-requisite to another practice that is explicit), and passages that leave the proper adminstration of those practices under the direction of the LDS church President. Hence the authority to “direct” is found in the priesthood administrator, not non-canonical texts.

I was hoping you would defend the doctrine rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

The “doctrine” has to be correctly depicted before it can be defended.

–fool

 

[majick275]

I think it has. Did you read my links to the “recent teaching cycle”?

I still think amgids link is definitive. You can call it outdated and non-canonical but then that would invalidate most of the teaching on WoW, The Temple and a host of other things. It also contradicts what is contained in current LDS scripture. The D&C clearly says that whasoever these guys speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the same asif God said it. Leading the church in any particualr practice has to be seen as siginificant as well. The overwhelming body of evidence makes it VERY clear that the LDS doctrine of eternal progression is exactly what the first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles said it was in amgids link.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I still think amgids link is definitive.

Not so definitive!

You can call it outdated and non-canonical but then that would invalidate most of the teaching on WoW, The Temple and a host of other things.

Not correct. When we say that only the standard works constitutes binding doctrine, it does not mean that everything else that is non-binding must therefore be, by definition, invalid. That is flawed reasoning. When my bishop preaches a sermon on a fine Sunday morning, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to which he is entitled, exhorting the congregation to righteousness and virtue, that is not binding LDS doctrine, but it does not make his sermon invalid either. I very much have an interest in going there and listening to him with the same Spirit that he preaches it, recognize by that Spirit that it is inspired and comes from God, and obeying it, otherwise I would come under condemnation.

It also contradicts what is contained in current LDS scripture. The D&C clearly says that whasoever these guys speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the same as if God said it.

It does not contradict that at all. There are two provisos involved in that:

(1) I have said this before, and will repeat it again, that “scripture” is not the same ting as “new doctrine”. 100% of the Bible may be scripture; but 90% of it is not new doctrine. Most of it is exhortation to repent, to believe in God, and keep His commandments. What we are talking about here is when somebody brings in a new doctrine which cannot be substantiated by the standard works of the Church. That is an entirely different ball game.

(2) The clause, “as moved upon by the Holy Ghost” is absolutely critical here. When my bishop preaches me a fine sermon by the Holy Ghost on a Sunday morning, I have an obligation to obey it. But he may not always be so inspired. How will I know? The answer is by the same Spirit. I have as much an obligation to keep and possess that Spirit with me as I listen to him, as he does when he preaches it; and to discern by that Spirit if he is inspired of God or not. It takes two to tango in this one. Blind obedience it not the LDS norm here. That may be the Catholic way, but not the LDS way. Heber C. Kimball had a favorite saying. He used to exhort Church members to get the light (Spirit) in themselves, and used to tell them that the time would come when “nobody in the Church would be able to live on borrowed light”. Church members need to have the Spirit with them to know that they are being led aright by their leaders; and (on very rare occasions) when they may not be. That is the Lord’s way of doing things in His true Church. That is what the law of “common consent” is all about. That is what we “sustain” people (and their decisions) at General Conferences, and stake and ward conferences. That is not just an idle exercise. Church members are required to make those decisions intelligently, and to know that the decisions they are sustaining are the right decisions, otherwise they will be held accountable for it before the Lord.

Leading the church in any particualr practice has to be seen as siginificant as well.

Not sure what you mean by that.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

The overwhelming body of evidence makes it VERY clear that the LDS doctrine of eternal progression is exactly what the first presidency and quorum of twelve apostles said it was in amgids link.

Well, my understanding of “eternal progression,” if you insist on using that term, is the scriptural one. This is how this doctrine is taught in the standard works:

D&C 232:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, . . . it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
This is how I understand “eternal progression” (if you want to use that term). It says nothing about making planets for spirit kids and providing saviors for them; it says nothing about God once being a man on another planet, or not always being God. If the First Presidency have a different idea about “eternal progression”, then they will have to bring a new revelation to that effect, state in clear terms that it is a new revelation from God, and submit it to the congregation of the saints for their sustaining vote, and then I will accept it as a doctrine of the Church.

Indeed LDS theology, when correctly understood, specifically excludes such a possibility. LDS doctrine teaches, firstly, that all the vast creations of the Almighty—all the myriad planets and stars in the universe (which according to LDS doctrine are inhabited) were created by the one and only true God; and secondly, that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of all these creations and their inhabitants, not just of this earth. If you take that idea to its logical conclusion, it excludes the possibility of (1) other people making planets and providing savors for them; and (2) of God not always being God, or of having once being a man on another planet. Which planet? The ones that He had made Himself?

The views expressed in that passage that you had quoted in the link I had given was widely prevalent in the Church in the 19th century, and everybody in the Church at that time beleived that that is how the relevant scriptures were meant to be understood. The First Presidency makes it clear that they are not claiming to be giving out a new revelation to the Church on this subject, but were merely reiterating how everybody in the Church at that time understood existing scripture. The clause: “So far as . . . have been made known through divine revelation, . . .” makes that clear. It is neither a revelation nor binding doctrine in the Church.

amgid

 

[majick275]

well let’s talk about the “revelation” on eternal progression:

*“That exalted position was made manifest to me at a very early day. I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This may appear to some minds as something very strange and remarkable, but it is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and with His promises.”

• Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God, Sunday, September 18, 1898.*

Marion G. Romney re-emphasized in the October 1964 General Conference.

While I do NOT like FARMS or FAIR, in the interest of open discussion will you look at this article : farms.byu.edu/publications/paperschapter.php?chapid=63

and tell me if you agree with it.

I think a reading of the LDS lesson manual links that I posted make it clear that this is not seen as a “new” revelation after Joseph Smith Jr. but rather exactly what he revealed and what is meant by your D&C scripture. I continue to use the term “eternal progression” because that it is what is called in LDS publications including the current teaching manuals. We have seen what has been clearly stated by past presidents of the LDS church on this. We have NOT seen it renounced or “corrected” since. There would be no need to bring up “new” revelation for sustaining vote since it was already “revealed” by those who were sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. It certainly can be supported by LDS “scriptures” and the examples that you gave about Heavenly Father creating everything and Jesus being the saviour of all are I think negated by the LDS scriptural view of the terms like “everlasting to everlasting” and such. It has been made clear by past LDS leaders that Father DIRECTED the creation of OUR world and is OUR God. That Jesus is OUR saviour.

This from Vajda’s book (not agreeing with Vajda just trying to find some common ground)
The members of the Godhead, on the other hand, are uncreated and eternal in the sense that their intelligences are uncreated and eternal. They exist and have always existed within the context of the space-time continuum. As they are now, they will always be, but they have not always been as they are now. From the perspective of this universe and the people on this earth, the Father has certainly always been divine; but strictly speaking, he was not always a god. At one point he was a mortal man, and through a process of growth and progression he “became God.”
Gospel Principles (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1992), 305. This, of course, also explains why the Father has a glorified and resurrected body of flesh and bones.

I think you resist accepting this doctrine because you know it’s wrong. Unfortunately it IS the doctrine of the CoJCoLDS. Denying it doesn’t help, you must deny those who established it and promoted it. Of course then you would be by your definition an apostate.

 

[majick275]

It has been consistently taught in the LDS church:

Milton R. Hunter (The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104):
“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”

Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation 1:10, 1954, cited from 21st printing 1975):
“God is an exalted man. Some people are trouble over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith … that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man…”

LeGrand Richards (private letter to Morris L. Reynolds, July 14, 1966):
“There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as church doctrine, and this is: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.’”

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (published by the church as an official lesson manual 1997 [text “approved 10/95”], p. 29):
“President Brigham Young taught … that God the Father was once a man on another planet who ‘passed the ordeals we are now passing through…’”

 

[amgid]

Thank you majick for your reply. I believe that my previous posts cover all the objections you have raised. I don’t think there is any need for me to add more to what I have already said.

As for the article from FARMS you had linked to, give me a couple more days and I will read it and give you my opinion of it, as I am a bit busy right now. I will give you a reply next week sometime.

amgid

 

[amgid]

majick275:

It certainly can be supported by LDS “scriptures” and the examples that you gave about Heavenly Father creating everything and Jesus being the saviour of all are I think negated by the LDS scriptural view of the terms like “everlasting to everlasting” and such.

That simply is not true. It doesn’t make any sense either. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by that.

It has been made clear by past LDS leaders that Father DIRECTED the creation . . .

Neither does this one. The Father is the creator of the universe, and He did that through the agency of His Son. Does that mean that He is not the creator any more? That is a ludicrous assertion.

. . . of OUR world and is OUR God.

So He is not the God of the rest of the creation? What an absurd comment. You know perfectly well that that is not what LDS believe.

That Jesus is OUR saviour.

Meaning that He is not the Savior of the rest of creation? I assure you that is not correct. LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus is the savior and Redeemer of all of God’s creation, not just this earth.

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

That simply is not true. It doesn’t make any sense either. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you mean by that.

I meant this:
From the perspective of this universe and the people on this earth, the Father has certainly always been divine; but strictly speaking, he was not always a god. At one point he was a mortal man, and through a process of growth and progression he “became God.”
D&C 132 seems to support it.

amgid:

Neither does this one. The Father is the creator of the universe, and He did that through the agency of His Son. Does that mean that He is not the creator any more? That is a ludicrous assertion.

I hate to get all excessively into semantics but LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father directed Jesus to “organize” the earth and that he (Jesus) did this with the assistance of Adam. So in a literal sense NO, LDS doctrine does not teach that Heavenly Father created everything.

amgid:

So He is not the God of the rest of the creation? What an absurd comment. You know perfectly well that that is not what LDS believe.

see above but also, think of the Temple Ceremony. The process of salvation on other worlds seems problematic. Granted the Temple teaching could be reconciled with mormon fools speculative example but as I said, that still seems blasphemous to me.

amgid:

Meaning that He is not the Savior of the rest of creation? I assure you that is not correct. LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus is the savior and Redeemer of all of God’s creation, not just this earth.

amgid

or just this universe. as i said above, it’s only from our perspective not an absolute.

 

[majick275]

amgid:

Thank you majick for your reply. I believe that my previous posts cover all the objections you have raised. I don’t think there is any need for me to add more to what I have already said.

You know better than that. But at least everyone else here could see the truth.

amgid:

As for the article from FARMS you had linked to, give me a couple more days and I will read it and give you my opinion of it, as I am a bit busy right now. I will give you a reply next week sometime.

amgid

Fair enough. I look forward to your comments.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I meant this:
From the perspective of this universe and the people on this earth, the Father has certainly always been divine; but strictly speaking, he was not always a god. At one point he was a mortal man, and through a process of growth and progression he “became God.”
D&C 132 seems to support it.

I hate to get all excessively into semantics but LDS teaching is that Heavenly Father directed Jesus to “organize” the earth and that he (Jesus) did this with the assistance of Adam. So in a literal sense NO, LDS doctrine does not teach that Heavenly Father created everything.

see above but also, think of the Temple Ceremony. The process of salvation on other worlds seems problematic. Granted the Temple teaching could be reconciled with mormon fools speculative example but as I said, that still seems blasphemous to me.

or just this universe. as i said above, it’s only from our perspective not an absolute.

None of the things you have said makes much sense to me, and I don’t recognize it as LDS doctrine.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Well they don’t make sense to me either. That’s why I left the LDS church and became Catholic. You know it’s LDS doctrine though. It’s been taught since Joseph Smith Jr. and the only “distancing” from it was Gordon B. Hinkley’s dissembling. Notice he didn’t deny it or even say we don’t know it. He said we don’t know MUCH about it. Of course later when addressing the church he said he knows quite well.

I find it interesting that you strive so hard to resist the teachings of so many LDS “prophets” and look for loopholes that allow you to dismiss their pronouncements as “speculation”. That doesn’t sound like follow the prophet. You seem to want to limit your prophet to a very, very narrow ability to direct you so that you only follow his counsel when you absolutely have to and even then subject to your personal interpretation. You know what’s been taught and you don’t like it. Good! now do the right thing and admit that those who taught these false doctrines must be false prophets.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Well they don’t make sense to me either. . . .

Nice joke. You have a good sense of humor.

amgid

 

[majick275]

I testify we are sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly Father. His plan for our eternal progression is perfect.
Ricks College Devotional
January 11, 2000
Elder David A. Bednar

Each of us can be directed and blessed in our eternal progression by receiving these blessings.
President Elaine L. Jack
General President of the Relief Society
October 1996 General Conference.

So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. —(Joseph Fielding Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.69; See also Improvement Era, Vol. 19, p. 942)

"Further, as the prophet also taught, there is ‘a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? . . . Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that he had a Father also?’ (Teachings, pp. 370, 373.) In this way both the Father and the Son, as also all exalted beings, are now or in due course will become Gods of Gods. (Teachings, pp. 343-376.)" (Mormon Doctrine, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City, 1966 ed., pages 322 & 323)

"We accept the fact that God is the Supreme Intelligent Being in the universe. He has the greatest knowledge, the most perfect will, and the most infinite power of any person within the realm of our understanding. . . .
"Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of Godhood? In the first place, aeons ago God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it. From day to day He exerted His will vigorously, and as a result became thoroughly acquainted with the forces lying about Him. As he gained more knowledge through persistent effort and continuous industry, as well as through absolute obedience, His understanding of the universal laws continued to become more complete. Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became God by absolute obedience to all the eternal laws of the Gospel–by conforming His actions to all truth, and thereby became the author of eternal truth. Therefore, the road that the Eternal Father followed to Godhood was one of living at all times a dynamic, industrious, and completely righteous life. There is no other way to exaltation.
Milton R. Hunter
The Gospel Through The Ages, pp. 114-117

“Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."
Interview of Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, April 13, 1997

*In the Mormon scheme, every person is a potential divinity. The adage “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be” expresses the Mormon belief that God was once a human being, with a wife and children. But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God’s connubial relationship, he replied, “We don’t speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young
said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don’t know what he meant by that.” Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, “There he is, right there. I’m not going to worry about what he said about those things.”

I asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism.

“I don’t have the remotest idea what you mean,” he said impatiently.

“More than one god.”

“Yes, but that’s a very loose term,” he replied. “We believe in eternal progression.” By that he meant that human beings can evolve toward godhood by following the Mormon path. “You want to be a reporter always?” he said. “You want to be a scrub forever, through all eternity? We believe that life, eternal life, is real, that it’s purposeful, that it has meaning, that it can be realized. I wouldn’t describe us as polytheistic.”*
Gordon B. Hinckley Interview in “Lives of the Saint”, New Yorker, January 2002

I don’t know what “eternal progression” is. It is not a concept that is contained in LDS scripture, and I don’t know what it means.
amgid
August 20, 2005
amgid