Mormons no longer teaching that God the Father has a Father

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BartBurk

Guest
The answer is “We don’t know very much about that.” When asked if the Mormon Church teaches that God has a Father he said, “Some do, but the teaching is not in the scriptures.”

I expect if you go to their web site and ask a church representative about that they are going to be telling the truth. So I think you can now say the Mormon Church does not teach that God has a Father. They are running away from that historic belief. That is a welcome change. I think they are coming closer and closer to the traditional Christian belief about the Godhead.

If you would have asked a Mormon representative about this 30 years ago they would have stated without hesitation they believed God has a Father. It seems that teaching is undergoing a review.
 
Or perhaps the “divine speculation” past apostles engaged in is finally being addressed concerning the nature of God…and what is known today of the nature of God…does not conform completely with the “speculation” of such things in the 19th century.🤷
 
What the LDS church teaches is a bit of a moving target. Unlike the Catholic chuch who has the CCC, there is no corresponding document in Mormonism. You could consider the LDS canonized scriptures (the 4 “standard works”: Bible, BoM, D&C and PofGP) as definitive doctrine but then there is this always ambiguous “words of the living prophets” assertion. So you can see what the church “teaches” is not so easy to define. Official church teaching is one thing, what members speak of and ponder together is another. There is a sort of a nod and a wink to these sorts of concepts (God the Father has a Father, etc) where for example Gordon B Hinckley (the most recent LDS President before the current one) says to Mike Wallace regarding a particularly peculiar doctrine, “i don’t know what we teach that”. Teach it? No. Believe it? Certainly a good portion of the temple-going LDS membership certainly does. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
 
I find the fact that Mormons can just change their doctrine any time they please to be evidence against their claim to the truth.

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 RSV)

Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
(James 1:17 RSV)
 
Holly3278 said:
I find the fact that Mormons can just change their doctrine any time they please to be evidence against their claim to the truth.

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 RSV)

Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
(James 1:17 RSV)
Click to expand...
I’m not Mormon…but I would think that their response would be…God doesn’t change…but our understanding and insights do indeed change over time as we come to understand the nature and work of God more fully.
 
Holly3278 said:
I find the fact that Mormons can just change their doctrine any time they please to be evidence against their claim to the truth.

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 RSV)
Click to expand...
This may be why they do not accept any “Creed” as a definitive statement of their basic beliefs, nor why they do not have anything resembling a Catechism. Gaining a deeper understanding of revelation cannot change the truth of that revelation. The two biggies that I see in the LDS church are the change in the practice of polygamy and allowing blacks into the priesthood, both of which were supposedly revealed truths, if I am correct in my understanding.
 
Holly3278 said:
I find the fact that Mormons can just change their doctrine any time they please to be evidence against their claim to the truth.

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6 RSV)

Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
(James 1:17 RSV)
Click to expand...
No doctrines were ever changed. Practices changed…not the doctrines.
You cite scriptures that state the Lord does not change. If that is so, then why are we not practicing animal sacrifice? Why do the practices of Christianity not match up with Judaism? Did God…change?
 
SteveVH said:
This may be why they do not accept any “Creed” as a definitive statement of their basic beliefs, nor why they do not have anything resembling a Catechism. Gaining a deeper understanding of revelation cannot change the truth of that revelation. The two biggies that I see in the LDS church are the change in the practice of polygamy and allowing blacks into the priesthood, both of which were supposedly revealed truths, if I am correct in my understanding.
Click to expand...
Can you think of any instances in the Bible where polygamy was allowed? then later disallowed?
Can you think of any instances in the Bible where the priesthood was withheld from a group of people? Are all Catholic priests descendants of Aaron or Levites?

Again, revealed truths did not change but practices of those truths did.
 
BartBurk said:
The answer is “We don’t know very much about that.” When asked if the Mormon Church teaches that God has a Father he said, “Some do, but the teaching is not in the scriptures.”

I expect if you go to their web site and ask a church representative about that they are going to be telling the truth. So I think you can now say the Mormon Church does not teach that God has a Father. They are running away from that historic belief. That is a welcome change. I think they are coming closer and closer to the traditional Christian belief about the Godhead.

If you would have asked a Mormon representative about this 30 years ago they would have stated without hesitation they believed God has a Father. It seems that teaching is undergoing a review.
Click to expand...
The thing I noticed right away is that if one has THE TRUTH, then nothing should ever change. Doctrine should no just fade away. That is one of the great reasons why I love the CC. They say they have the truth and if you don’t like it, pray to God because He’ll tell you the same thing.
 
This thread is basically based on a 13 - 14 year old interview.
Our beliefs have not changed. We have never really emphasized God having a Father, mainly because we don’t know much about it…just as was stated in the interview.
What we do emphasize is that we may become like God.
 
This begs the question then, did the God the Father give himself a body?
 
flyonthewall said:
No doctrines were ever changed. Practices changed…not the doctrines.
You cite scriptures that state the Lord does not change. If that is so, then why are we not practicing animal sacrifice? Why do the practices of Christianity not match up with Judaism? Did God…change?
Click to expand...
God does not change. The differences between Judaism and Christianity are differences in the two covenants. The animal sacrifices, blood sacrifices, required by God in the Old Testament for forgiveness of sins were always insufficient, but required as an act of repentance. When Jesus became man and shed His blood, the debt for sin that was owed was repaid. Thus, animal sacrifices became irrelevant as part of the old covenant, as the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ. As Jesus said, He came to fulfill the law. Once fulfilled, the practices of the old covenant fell away. Hence the tearing of the temple veil, etc.

God did not change. He always required the sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, but man was incapable of a sacrifice sufficient enough to fulfill that. That sacrifice was good forever, as Hebrews explains. In mass we celebrate that sacrifice and make it present to celebrate what Jesus did for us.
 
thomasf said:
God does not change. The differences between Judaism and Christianity are differences in the two covenants. The animal sacrifices, blood sacrifices, required by God in the Old Testament for forgiveness of sins were always insufficient, but required as an act of repentance. When Jesus became man and shed His blood, the debt for sin that was owed was repaid. Thus, animal sacrifices became irrelevant as part of the old covenant, as the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ. As Jesus said, He came to fulfill the law. Once fulfilled, the practices of the old covenant fell away. Hence the tearing of the temple veil, etc.

God did not change. He always required the sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, but man was incapable of a sacrifice sufficient enough to fulfill that. That sacrifice was good forever, as Hebrews explains. In mass we celebrate that sacrifice and make it present to celebrate what Jesus did for us.
Click to expand...
This is what I am saying. God does not change but practices do.
The law of sacrifice is the doctrine/truth. Animal sacrifice was a practice.
When Jesus offered Himself as The Sacrifice, the practice changed, the truth did not.

Our doctrines have not changed, but practices have.
 
So when the mormons believed in plural marriage and Joseph Smith taught this, this was a practice and not a docterine? And when the mormons believed that black people couldn’t be priesthood holders because they were black because they were being punished for their sins, that was a practice and not a docterine? And when the mormons taught that God had a father, and that he was a created being, but then changed that, that was a practice and not a docterine?

IMO those are beliefs. And they were part of what JSmith and the profits of the lds church taught, as revelation from God. But then they changed, as the revelations apparently changed. Truth is truth. It cannot be taught as true that god has a father and was a created being, and then be true that he does not and is not later. It cannot be true that black people aren’t worthy of the priesthood, and then be true that they are worthy at a later date.
 
I am curious about one thing and would be interested in hearing the LDS position. Reading about other religious beliefs has been something I have done over too many years to recount, so I cannot cite the books on this one.

In the early years of the LDS, wasn’t plural marriage called an everlasting covenant? Unless I am wrong, and it would not be the millionth time, I seem to remember reading Brigham Young’s pronouncement that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation.

Another one that comes to my mind is that I also seem to remember reading older LDS writings, maybe sermons or maybe other things, that the LDS taught an endless progression of gods. That was followed with a statement along the lines of ours is “the only one with whom we have anything to do.”

Do I have those scrambled beyond recognition or am I somewhere near the glide path?
 
Georgia said:
I am curious about one thing and would be interested in hearing the LDS position. Reading about other religious beliefs has been something I have done over too many years to recount, so I cannot cite the books on this one.

In the early years of the LDS, wasn’t plural marriage called an everlasting covenant? Unless I am wrong, and it would not be the millionth time, I seem to remember reading Brigham Young’s pronouncement that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation.
Click to expand...
No. Marriage is the new and everlasting covenant. Plural marriage was a practice. Those that were called or commanded to practice it, their exaltation depended on obeying the Lord.
Another one that comes to my mind is that I also seem to remember reading older LDS writings, maybe sermons or maybe other things, that the LDS taught an endless progression of gods. That was followed with a statement along the lines of ours is “the only one with whom we have anything to do.”
Click to expand...
Do I have those scrambled beyond recognition or am I somewhere near the glide path?
Click to expand...
The truth that was revealed was “As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man may become”. We don’t know much more than that.
There have been many logical conclusions drawn from that, but no official teachings.

Many critics mine the Journal of Discourses for isolated quotes to formulate conclusions about our bleiefs, but they miss the totality of the message or the belief.
 
flyonthewall said:
No. Marriage is the new and everlasting covenant. Plural marriage was a practice. Those that were called or commanded to practice it, their exaltation depended on obeying the Lord.
Click to expand...
Probably something for another thread but…marriage being the "new and everlasting covenant makes no sense, marriage has been here since the creation.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Probably something for another thread but…marriage being the "new and everlasting covenant makes no sense, marriage has been here since the creation.
Click to expand...
It’s not just marriage that the LDS call the N & E C

NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT
The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 66:2). It is new every time it is revealed anew following a period of apostasy. It is everlasting in the sense that it is God’s covenant and has been enjoyed in every gospel dispensation where people have been willing to receive it. The new and everlasting covenant was revealed again to men on earth by Jesus Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith. It contains sacred ordinances administered by priesthood authority—such as baptism and temple marriage—that provide for man’s salvation, immortality, and eternal life. When people accept the gospel and promise to keep God’s commandments, God covenants to give them the blessings of his new and everlasting covenant. (LDS.org)
 
Jesus is the New Covenant, fulfilling the old covenant by His Blood.

There is no other “new covenant” than Him.

Jeremiah 31
31 The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Luke 22
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top