Question for LDS

[SirThomasMore]

It was declared false doctrine by the LDS Church. It was never doctrine of the Church because it was never added to scripture or considered a revelation.

It was declared by THE Prophet. This same prophet said that the teaching was scripture. Now, run from it all you need to, but it is further proof that your prophets are false prophets.

More importantly, Cothrige asked for a LDS to provide an answer because** I tend not to trust people speaking against somebody’s faith**.

I am not speaking against the LDS Church. I am telling the truth about what one of your proiphets taught

Not only did you ignore the editor request, you did not address the topic, which was ex nihilo. In addition, after being clearly corrected in continue to ignore the topic of creation ex nihilo and not the Adam God Theory.

You have not corrected me. I have spoken the truth

For an ecumenical activity to exist, we must respect one another personally and we must respect the beliefs of others. We should not misstate, distort, twist, or deceive others. Doing so is not apologetics and never has been at any time in history. Worst of all, there is nothing Christ-like in such action.

I have spoken the truth. I have not twisted or distorted. I believe it IS Christlike to tell the truth. I have done so

 

[cothrige]

What existed prior to creation were “elements” (matter?) and “intelligence,” neither of which has been clearly defined in LDS scripture.

Elements and intelligence. Those certainly are labels which tempt further consideration, aren’t they?

The assumption is that they have always existed. Nothing has been revealed about where they came from.

Is this area subject to much speculation among LDS? I wonder because Catholic theologians and such are always thinking about those things which are not revealed, like limbo or what Jesus’ brothers and sisters exact relationship to him is. Are there LDS theologians? And do they ever spend any time discussing and considering these sorts of theologumena? Is it seen as something bearing on other doctrines?

 

[ParkerD]

I hadn’t thought about time and creation, but reading this I do wonder. Perhaps you or a current LDS here could go a bit further on the relation of the two in LDS theology? If matter existed before creation how would that relate to time? In Catholic belief we see God as eternal, i.e. existing outside of time, and that he created time when he did matter, which is subject to constant change. Would the matter that existed prior to creation be inside or outside of time? I guess what I am saying is would that material be eternal? Is God eternal, and if so is that roughly equivalent to the Catholic idea of eternity?

Perhaps barnesms or dianaiad will share some thoughts on this. I would love to know how they feel about these things.

Cothrige,
I don’t plan to become heavily involved in this conversation, but I hope I can add a bit for your thinking process on these questions.

First, I would say that time is viewed by LDS as “eternal”–both backward and forward, but for God there is not a time dimension as we understand time, in that He sees the past, the present, and the future as one eternal “now” and rejoices in always knowing the end from the beginning and the eternal consequences of each person’s individual choices and their growth processes including repentance.

This is one reason He is so patient with us as humankind, and with our mistakes. I would look at our time dimension as having been given to us by a loving God, and that there are other time dimensions within other spheres of His creations. (The Doctrine and Covenants Section 88 and Section 93 and certain parts of the Pearl of Great Price discuss this briefly, if I recall correctly.)

My understanding is that the idea of the conservation of matter and energy would apply in terms of the organization of our presently known “universe” by a loving Heavenly Father–that He and the FirstBorn Son, Jehovah, created the heavens we see and this earth plus many other functional earths with human populations on them and plants and animals, and did that using existing matter or energy and principles of truth for organizing them from a chaotic state or bringing them from an existing functional form such as a seed from elsewhere in either this universe or an earlier one (for those who think about string theory or "multiverses’).

If you do some reading on theories about creation, you will find that the word “organized” is a fitting word for the idea of the creation of the earth and the heavens, and can fit the Biblical Hebrew well in that the Hebrew word that is translated as “created” could just as well have been translated as “organized”.

I think LDS are comfortable within scientific realms of thought and discussion on the subjects that come up related to the creation account in the Bible, and especially in relation to the whole subject of the “problem of evil” when compared with “creation ex nihilo”. (I have only what would be called a casual interest in the entire subject, but that is the gist of what I have come across in my readings.) Note that even the Big Bang theory presupposes the existence of a super-concentration of energy within a tiny point as the beginning point. (Not that I believe in the Big Bang theory–I don’t.)

Peace to you as you explore your thinking on these topics.

 

[zerinus]

Elements and intelligence. Those certainly are labels which tempt further consideration, aren’t they?

Is this area subject to much speculation among LDS? I wonder because Catholic theologians and such are always thinking about those things which are not revealed, like limbo or what Jesus’ brothers and sisters exact relationship to him is. Are there LDS theologians? And do they ever spend any time discussing and considering these sorts of theologumena? Is it seen as something bearing on other doctrines?

Yes, there are LDS theologians who like to discuss and speculate about such doctrines, and there is nothing wrong with that as such. However, although a certain amount of speculative thinking may be necessary in the discovery process, it more often leads to the substitution of speculation for knowledge of the truth, which is not a desirable state of affairs, and therefore it is not encouraged in the LDS Church. In modern revelation the Lord has advised Latter-day Saints to avoid speculation and stick to what has been revealed and “written,” and therefore is known to be true:

D&C 32:

4 And they shall give heed to that which is written *, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may unfold the same to their understanding.

D&C 80*:

4 Therefore, declare the things which ye have heard, and verily believe, and know to be true.

There is a difference between knowing something and guessing abut something. Everyone can know when they are doing one or the other. Guesswork is not a substitute for the truth. The commandment is to avoid guesswork and stick to the revealed truth.

 

[Chris-WA]

Cothrige, the above is (Edited) not found in LDS Scripture, is not taught by the LDS Church, and never was.

It is intellectually dishonest to say something was never taught by the LDS Church just because it cannot be directly found in LDS scripture. LDS prophets have a long history of teaching things that go beyond LDS scripture, and these teachings are well documented. Now the question is whether or not the prophets expect the flock to believe such teachings or whether it’s all just speculating from the pulpit. Since I have never read documentation that a Mormon prophet prefaces anything he preaches with “Now this is just my own personal opinion…,” then I think it’s reasonable to assume whenever he preaches to the church that (1) he is speaking the truth, (2) he is speaking authoritatively as a divinely-appointed prophet, and (3) he expects the church to believe what he is teaching.

The obvious problem here is that there are many recorded instances of LDS prophets teaching things that are really out there. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both fit into this category. In order to get around this problem, many LDS claim that Smith, Young, and others were merely speculating, but the preaching itself does not seem to confirm this explanation at all. Smith, Young, and others give no indication that they were merely speculating, nor do they indicate that the flock did not have to believe what they were saying just because those things were not specifically laid out in LDS scripture.

One of the most important claims of the LDS church is that it is led by a divinely-appointed prophet with the same authority as Moses or any other biblical prophet. So if the LDS prophet gets up in front of the church and publicly preaches from the pulpit, I can only assume that what he says is truth and should be accepted by the church as such. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having a prophet? Is there not an old LDS saying that goes, “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”? This is why the “that’s not in scripture argument” doesn’t hold water. Ultimately, if a church claims to be led by a real prophet, then it can’t pick and choose which teachings of the prophet are to be believed and which are to be disregarded as speculation.

The LDS Church does not teach that creation was ex nihilo. What it does teach is the God the Father created the earth and this universe through his Son, Jesus. Existing matter was organized as directed by God the Father into creation. I know this is very brief for such a complex question and I can elaborate if you would like; however, I would have to review some documents. Suffice it to say that this is hardly a common topic of teaching.

I added the emphasis to the word this above. This is a very important word of distinction used by LDS that if you’re not paying attention, you can easily overlook. This is the crack that opens up the possibility that there are other universes created by other gods, which fits into the LDS belief in eternal progression wherein God the Father was once a man who had a god above him and so on and so on. Joseph Smith preached this belief to the church as truth, and many LDS believe in it to this day. This concept of God is anathema to Catholic doctrine and is to be rejected outright.

 

[why_me]

It is intellectually dishonest to say something was never taught by the LDS Church just because it cannot be directly found in LDS scripture. LDS prophets have a long history of teaching things that go beyond LDS scripture, and these teachings are well documented. Now the question is whether or not the prophets expect the flock to believe such teachings or whether it’s all just speculating from the pulpit. Since I have never read documentation that a Mormon prophet prefaces anything he preaches with “Now this is just my own personal opinion…,” then I think it’s reasonable to assume whenever he preaches to the church that (1) he is speaking the truth, (2) he is speaking authoritatively as a divinely-appointed prophet, and (3) he expects the church to believe what he is teaching.

The obvious problem here is that there are many recorded instances of LDS prophets teaching things that are really out there. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both fit into this category. In order to get around this problem, many LDS claim that Smith, Young, and others were merely speculating, but the preaching itself does not seem to confirm this explanation at all. Smith, Young, and others give no indication that they were merely speculating, nor do they indicate that the flock did not have to believe what they were saying just because those things were not specifically laid out in LDS scripture.

One of the most important claims of the LDS church is that it is led by a divinely-appointed prophet with the same authority as Moses or any other biblical prophet. So if the LDS prophet gets up in front of the church and publicly preaches from the pulpit, I can only assume that what he says is truth and should be accepted by the church as such. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having a prophet? Is there not an old LDS saying that goes, “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”? This is why the “that’s not in scripture argument” doesn’t hold water. Ultimately, if a church claims to be led by a real prophet, then it can’t pick and choose which teachings of the prophet are to be believed and which are to be disregarded as speculation.

Personally, I couldn’t care less what was said in the past. All churches have humdingers in their past. The lutherans have Martin Luther and he said some humdingers. But no one really cares. And Catholics have popes who said some humdingers. But really no one really cares. And most protestant sects have humdingers too. But no one really cares. It is the same with mormons. Who cares what Brigham said in 1877? I don’t. What mormons have are the Brigham’s journal of discourses and these discourses can be found in many lds people’s libraries. And it is there that one can find crazy quotations and wonderful quotations.But noone really cares what he said or when. But what is known about brigham is his resolute steadfastness in gathering the saints in Utah and in finding a place for the saints to prosper and build communities in peace and safety.

One can not hold mormons to different standards with the words from the past. It is a wonderful gimmick by nonmormons to do so but the fact is: all faiths can be put on the fire if one searches for quotations from the past for crazy things said from past leaders.

 

[why_me]

And here is an semi-official statement about Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses. I paste it here because antimormon catholics love to quote from them:

In considering the reliability of the Journal of Discourses, we should remember certain circumstances.

Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication.

We should remember that the times were different then. A major concern of the early Saints was physical survival. Sermons often dealt with the practical problems of the time and so may seem quaint in our day, even if much of the advice is still valid.

Doctrinally, members of the Church were growing and learning. Most adults were converts who had to unlearn and relearn many doctrines. They were learning things which our children learn in Primary and Sunday School. Remarks were frequently impromptu. Close, friendly audiences frequently invited informal discussion of varied topics. There was occasional speculation about doctrines which have since been determined unimportant or even misleading.

The general membership of the Church has progressed in knowledge of gospel principles, which is as it should be. In our organizations, we have been taught the gospel for more than one hundred years now. Because of modern revelation and because of “line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept” progression, we have answers that were not yet given when the Journal of Discourses was published.

We also should be aware of priorities in our studies. It seems to me that we should first become very familiar with the four books of Scripture accepted as standard works. The words of our current living prophet are also most valuable for us in our time. The official statements of the First Presidency are standards for doctrine and practice in the Church. We should be familiar with the manuals and courses of study provided for us in our day. For further inspiration and instruction by the General Authorities, we can study general conference addresses, beginning with the most current and moving back in time.

Even after digesting these materials, some persons may still have time and inclination to peruse the Journal of Discourses. We can be grateful that records of the early sermons were kept to help us understand the growth of the Church and the testimonies of our early leaders. If we find the time to read them, however, we should avoid getting caught up in their uniqueness and should concentrate on the inspiring thoughts and experiences related to us by choice men.

Having taught seminary and institute classes for more than twenty years, I have tried to follow my own advice. Because I also love to read, I have read the scriptures many times, all of the general conference reports, and finally, all volumes of the Journal of Discourses.

Frankly, one of the main reasons I read the Journal of Discourses was so I could answer students’ questions about them with some knowledge of what they were about. Though I enjoyed reading them, gained some new insights, and was inspired by the spirit of the early brethren, except for the needs of students, there was no practical benefit that I could not have obtained from current conference talks with less effort, much greater clarity and more economy.

For me, the most pertinent discussion of gospel doctrines and answers to life’s problems and source of spiritual inspiration in today’s world comes from the standard works and our living prophets.

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1978.htm/ensign%20august%201978%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

The above was in the lds magazine: Ensign.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
I don’t plan to become heavily involved in this conversation, but I hope I can add a bit for your thinking process on these questions.

I appreciate that very much.

First, I would say that time is viewed by LDS as “eternal”–both backward and forward, but for God there is not a time dimension as we understand time, in that He sees the past, the present, and the future as one eternal “now” and rejoices in always knowing the end from the beginning and the eternal consequences of each person’s individual choices and their growth processes including repentance.

Would I be wrong in thinking then that the LDS view creation, as such, to be within eternity? What I mean is that if time exists throughout eternity in either direction then time has always existed, right?

This is one reason He is so patient with us as humankind, and with our mistakes. I would look at our time dimension as having been given to us by a loving God, and that there are other time dimensions within other spheres of His creations. (The Doctrine and Covenants Section 88 and Section 93 and certain parts of the Pearl of Great Price discuss this briefly, if I recall correctly.)

My understanding is that the idea of the conservation of matter and energy would apply in terms of the organization of our presently known “universe” by a loving Heavenly Father–that He and the FirstBorn Son, Jehovah, created the heavens we see and this earth plus many other functional earths with human populations on them and plants and animals, and did that using existing matter or energy and principles of truth for organizing them from a chaotic state or bringing them from an existing functional form such as a seed from elsewhere in either this universe or an earlier one (for those who think about string theory or "multiverses’).

I think you just broke my brain.

If you do some reading on theories about creation, you will find that the word “organized” is a fitting word for the idea of the creation of the earth and the heavens, and can fit the Biblical Hebrew well in that the Hebrew word that is translated as “created” could just as well have been translated as “organized”.

Okay, that makes sense within the context of what I have read here.

I think LDS are comfortable within scientific realms of thought and discussion on the subjects that come up related to the creation account in the Bible, and especially in relation to the whole subject of the “problem of evil” when compared with “creation ex nihilo”. (I have only what would be called a casual interest in the entire subject, but that is the gist of what I have come across in my readings.) Note that even the Big Bang theory presupposes the existence of a super-concentration of energy within a tiny point as the beginning point. (Not that I believe in the Big Bang theory–I don’t.)

Yes, I believe I have been involved in some interesting discussions here, perhaps even with yourself, regarding the “problem of evil.” I have forgotten how creatio ex nihilo may have played into that. But, I am growing more and more certain as I learn on this thread (through the gracious help of the LDS community here, who I can’t thank enough for such patience) that this subject is important if I would understand better what LDS mean in given situations regarding the faith. I think it may reflect the basic starting point of the question of Deity and may reflect in a great way the logical way of approaching revelation which seems so indicative of LDS thinking, to me at least. There is always such a rational, almost scientific, approach to belief. For a faith so infused with an intimacy with the Spirit (I hope I am not being too bold in seeming to characterising you, and I hope you understand that I only mean to describe my own personal impressions) there is often little which would seem to us as mystical. It is all so logical and intellectual, at least it often seems that way to me. And having asked this basic question, and in trying to see the implications, I am becoming more certain that it reflects some of this.

Peace to you as you explore your thinking on these topics.

Many thanks. You have been very kind to help me.

 

[cothrige]

Yes, there are LDS theologians who like to discuss and speculate about such doctrines, and there is nothing wrong with that as such. However, although a certain amount of speculative thinking may be necessary in the discovery process, it more often leads to the substitution of speculation for knowledge of the truth, which is not a desirable state of affairs, and therefore it is not encouraged in the LDS Church. In modern revelation the Lord has advised Latter-day Saints to avoid speculation and stick to what has been revealed and “written,” and therefore is known to be true:

Interesting. As a Catholic I can certainly understand that point of view. If one invites theologians eventually you are going to get a Hans Kung.

 

[ParkerD]

It is intellectually dishonest to say something was never taught by the LDS Church just because it cannot be directly found in LDS scripture.

The word “taught” is an important word in your statement here, Chris. If a person says something once or twice in their life, compared with thousands of other statements and the consistency within those thousands of other statements, then for one to say “well, that person taught such and such” using one or two statements that are outside of the norm for the person, is more intellectually stretching the word “teach” than to examine the consistent teachings of the person throughout the course of their life.

However, I don’t mind what BY is quoted to have said. It serves the purpose of weeding out “tares” from “wheat.” But it was never a “teaching” of the LDS church, using the common definition of that word.

LDS prophets have a long history of teaching things that go beyond LDS scripture, and these teachings are well documented.

Each one of those statements can be explained and understood, but some not with merely the intellectual approach to religion. There is a spiritual approach to religion that is missed by intellectuals who don’t apply the spiritual principles taught by Paul and by the Savior.

Now the question is whether or not the prophets expect the flock to believe such teachings or whether it’s all just speculating from the pulpit.

Welcome to the Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4 where one can learn about whether to believe every single thing a prophet or LDS leader says on every single subject:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
4 And 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.

Each LDS member is expected, encouraged, and taught to seek the Holy Ghost in their life, and that as they do so they can discern truth, and can be taught by the Spirit with revealed knowledge. The relationship is between the Holy Ghost and the person doing the listening or doing the thinking and the praying. Maybe the words of even a “prophet” came out from their frame of reference differently than the rest of the world views things, and thus could be misunderstood or misconstrued. The relationship between the hearer or the learner and the Holy Ghost is to filter the spoken word into what the hearer will glean as truth for themselves personally.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuing to Chris-WA:

Since I have never read documentation that a Mormon prophet prefaces anything he preaches with “Now this is just my own personal opinion…,” then I think it’s reasonable to assume whenever he preaches to the church that (1) he is speaking the truth, (2) he is speaking authoritatively as a divinely-appointed prophet, and (3) he expects the church to believe what he is teaching.

If you’re talking about BY, it is evident that he sometimes “teased” the members with a statement that would perhaps startle them into stretching their own thought processes. I don’t think LDS prophets in my lifetime have done that, but I can see that it served a purpose way back when. I think it is evident that the members were used to his speaking patterns including speaking off the top of his head. He was a very busy man.

The obvious problem here is that there are many recorded instances of LDS prophets teaching things that are really out there. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both fit into this category. In order to get around this problem, many LDS claim that Smith, Young, and others were merely speculating, but the preaching itself does not seem to confirm this explanation at all. Smith, Young, and others give no indication that they were merely speculating, nor do they indicate that the flock did not have to believe what they were saying just because those things were not specifically laid out in LDS scripture.

One of the most important claims of the LDS church is that it is led by a divinely-appointed prophet with the same authority as Moses or any other biblical prophet. So if the LDS prophet gets up in front of the church and publicly preaches from the pulpit, I can only assume that what he says is truth and should be accepted by the church as such. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having a prophet?

Sources of truth include the “standard works” (which really are an important foundation), the Holy Spirit one-to-one, and what God wants an LDS person to learn from the living prophet and apostles (including if they have cited or brought into focus the earlier statements by earlier leaders, as has been done during the past ten or so years with teaching manuals). LDS do listen to the living prophet and learn from his teachings and example of living the gospel.

Is there not an old LDS saying that goes, “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”?

No, there is not.

This is why the “that’s not in scripture argument” doesn’t hold water. Ultimately, if a church claims to be led by a real prophet, then it can’t pick and choose which teachings of the prophet are to be believed and which are to be disregarded as speculation.

The problem with that approach is that a person not grounded in the scriptures and not used to colloquial expressions or not familiar with the Holy Spirit guiding their personal life and bearing witness of truths in a way that teaches their own heart whether or not they heard words that were said perfectly, is going to flounder. The gospel Christ taught could be lived on many different levels, but for those seeking its exalting purposes, the Holy Spirit must be sought after by the individual, and that individual must be grounded in the scriptures at some point in their life or they haven’t really loved the “word of God”, have they. The scriptures provide the grounding, settling “word of God”.

I added the emphasis to the word this above. This is a very important word of distinction used by LDS that if you’re not paying attention, you can easily overlook. This is the crack that opens up the possibility that there are other universes created by other gods, which fits into the LDS belief in eternal progression wherein God the Father was once a man who had a god above him and so on and so on. Joseph Smith preached this belief to the church as truth, and many LDS believe in it to this day.

Joseph Smith did not teach that God the Father had “a god above him”. A person can draw that implication from one sentence he is quoted as having said, but a person need not draw that implication unless they want to. He consistently taught that God the Father is the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If LDS people you visit with choose not to listen and heed the teachings of their living prophets, and instead go off speculating from one sentence of JS or BY, then that merely would mean they have their “seeking wisdom” ladder placed against an intellectual wall rather than against the spiritual wall that is the real basis for revealed knowledge directly through the Holy Ghost to the heart of the person. So it serves them right if their ladder falls and drops them because they didn’t seek to be grounded in the scriptures.

Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

I appreciate that very much.

Would I be wrong in thinking then that the LDS view creation, as such, to be within eternity? What I mean is that if time exists throughout eternity in either direction then time has always existed, right?

I think you just broke my brain.

Okay, that makes sense within the context of what I have read here.

Yes, I believe I have been involved in some interesting discussions here, perhaps even with yourself, regarding the “problem of evil.” I have forgotten how creatio ex nihilo may have played into that. But, I am growing more and more certain as I learn on this thread (through the gracious help of the LDS community here, who I can’t thank enough for such patience) that this subject is important if I would understand better what LDS mean in given situations regarding the faith. I think it may reflect the basic starting point of the question of Deity and may reflect in a great way the logical way of approaching revelation which seems so indicative of LDS thinking, to me at least. There is always such a rational, almost scientific, approach to belief. For a faith so infused with an intimacy with the Spirit (I hope I am not being too bold in seeming to characterising you, and I hope you understand that I only mean to describe my own personal impressions) there is often little which would seem to us as mystical. It is all so logical and intellectual, at least it often seems that way to me. And having asked this basic question, and in trying to see the implications, I am becoming more certain that it reflects some of this.

Many thanks. You have been very kind to help me.

Cothrige,
Thank you for your kind comments and very kind approach. What a delight!

Yes, LDS view creation as “within eternity”, but it is important to use the word “time” within a context of a specific dimension that is established by God for His purposes, so our “time” dimension is definitely nothing at all like His eternity dimension and His all-knowing ability to see all future and past as in the eternal present.

All the best to you in your spiritual exploration, whether to just understand others better or to stretch your own thought processes about the loving God who has given us so many wonderful gifts for our blessing.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Personally, I couldn’t care less what was said in the past. All churches have humdingers in their past. The lutherans have Martin Luther and he said some humdingers. But no one really cares. And Catholics have popes who said some humdingers. But really no one really cares. And most protestant sects have humdingers too. But no one really cares. It is the same with mormons. Who cares what Brigham said in 1877? I don’t. What mormons have are the Brigham’s journal of discourses and these discourses can be found in many lds people’s libraries. And it is there that one can find crazy quotations and wonderful quotations.But noone really cares what he said or when. But what is known about brigham is his resolute steadfastness in gathering the saints in Utah and in finding a place for the saints to prosper and build communities in peace and safety.

One can not hold mormons to different standards with the words from the past. It is a wonderful gimmick by nonmormons to do so but the fact is: all faiths can be put on the fire if one searches for quotations from the past for crazy things said from past leaders.

I do not think holding Mormons to a different standard is out of line. First, Mormons WANT mto be held to a different standard. They state as much. And since they are the only group that claims to have a prophet who talks directly to God, why shouldn;t they be held to a different standard?

It is an odd argument to compare BY to Martin Luther and claim they both said outrageous things, unless you want to say they were equals. If they were both prophets who claimed that what they said was Scripture, then compare away, though, if ML was a prophet, then there was no need for Joseph Smith. Or, BY was NOT a prophet, bbut merely, as ML, a guy who wanted to start a Church. Then, fine, BY was not a prophet (a point to which I agree).

But you cannot have it both ways. Mormons are always wanting it both ways. On one hand, they want to say that no other Church has prophets so they are THE truth Church, but then when their leaders say outrageous things, they want to compare them to non-prophets.

BY said Adam was god and came with one of his wives from another planet and is our God. BY said it was Scripture. Now, was he a prophet or not?

 

[barnesms]

I hadn’t thought about time and creation, but reading this I do wonder. Perhaps you or a current LDS here could go a bit further on the relation of the two in LDS theology? If matter existed before creation how would that relate to time? In Catholic belief we see God as eternal, i.e. existing outside of time, and that he created time when he did matter, which is subject to constant change. Would the matter that existed prior to creation be inside or outside of time? I guess what I am saying is would that material be eternal? Is God eternal, and if so is that roughly equivalent to the Catholic idea of eternity?

Perhaps barnesms or dianaiad will share some thoughts on this. I would love to know how they feel about these things.

This is very deep theology and I am speaking off the cuff. LDS believe that spirit matter is eternal. The creation was first done spiritually and was then followed by the physical or material creation. In this sense, spirit matter is outside of time. Physical matter is different, obviously, from spirit matter. Attempting to explain this creation or First Cause is very much like expecting an ant to count the grains of sand on the earth. Just as the ant has limited intelligence, so do we as humans when it comes to comprehending the meaning of eternity.

I don’t think it would be appropriate to state that the material world existed out of time, not in a mortal sense or by looking at the universe around us.

LDS believe that God is eternal. You may have heard the term “intelligence” in other LDS topics. LDS can say that each of us began as an intelligence; it is the most elemental form of spirit matter by which God created our spirit bodies. It is the very essence of our beings. In other words, LDS can say that we are eternal with God, but that should be understood to mean we have a Creator that took us and made us.

Is God eternal? God is eternal every bit as much as Jesus is eternal in LDS beliefs. The Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have never not been God. Was Jesus God before he came to this earth? Yes. Was he God after his mortal existence? Yes.

There is a teaching in the LDS Church about eternal progression; said another way that Jesus only did what he saw his Father do. This alludes to an adage that one of the prophets said, “Man is as God was once was, and God is as man may become.” This is anathema to many Christians because it is so little understood. Some of the scriptural foundation for this belief comes from the New Testament, John 5: 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. LDS believe this alludes to a time when the Son saw the Father act under similar circumstances as the Son was then doing. Was God mortal in an absolute sense? No, he was still God, just as Jesus was still God. Do I understand this entirely? No, it overwhelms me, it is beyond me, and it is a mystery.

I hope this answers your question. My objective here is purely ecumenical. The more we find commonality and can appreciate each other as disciples of Jesus, the better we stand together against the machinations of the evil one.

 

[barnesms]

I do not think holding Mormons to a different standard is out of line. First, Mormons WANT mto be held to a different standard. They state as much. And since they are the only group that claims to have a prophet who talks directly to God, why shouldn;t they be held to a different standard?

It is an odd argument to compare BY to Martin Luther and claim they both said outrageous things, unless you want to say they were equals. If they were both prophets who claimed that what they said was Scripture, then compare away, though, if ML was a prophet, then there was no need for Joseph Smith. Or, BY was NOT a prophet, bbut merely, as ML, a guy who wanted to start a Church. Then, fine, BY was not a prophet (a point to which I agree).

But you cannot have it both ways. Mormons are always wanting it both ways. On one hand, they want to say that no other Church has prophets so they are THE truth Church, but then when their leaders say outrageous things, they want to compare them to non-prophets.

BY said Adam was god and came with one of his wives from another planet and is our God. BY said it was Scripture. Now, was he a prophet or not?

You do cause me to laugh so very often. This has been asked and answered many times. Let me be crystal clear 1) Was BY a prophet? Yes absolutely! 2) Was BY a man? Yes, absolutely! 3) Can a prophet talk as a prophet and still talk as a man? Yes, absolutely? Was the Adam-God theory every scripture for the LDS Church? No, absolutely not! Was it declared false doctrine? Yes, absolutely! Does having personal thoughts or ideas for a man deny him from being a prophet? Absolutely not. If an individual has not read the Old Testament and gained a clear understanding of how fragile, mortal, and imperfect prophets of God are, then you simple need STOP talking and read about God and his prophets! After you have done that, let’s talk for a little while about prophets.

 

[twopekinguys]

You do cause me to laugh so very often. This has been asked and answered many times. Let me be crystal clear 1) Was BY a prophet? Yes absolutely! 2) Was BY a man? Yes, absolutely! 3) Can a prophet talk as a prophet and still talk as a man? Yes, absolutely? Was the Adam-God theory every scripture for the LDS Church? No, absolutely not! Was it declared false doctrine? Yes, absolutely! Does having personal thoughts or ideas for a man deny him from being a prophet? Absolutely not. If an individual has not read the Old Testament and gained a clear understanding of how fragile, mortal, and imperfect prophets of God are, then you simple need STOP talking and read about God and his prophets! After you have done that, let’s talk for a little while about prophets.

I have to agree with Sir Thomas. It appears you are trying to have it both ways.

Brigham Young said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).

Since he said that when he was the “prophet”, then anything he said in his speeches or sermons should be considered prophetic. Including the Adam-god doctrine.

Just because someone came along later and changed things around, doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered doctrine at the time.

Pick a side, any side, just pick one.

 

[ParkerD]

I have to agree with Sir Thomas. It appears you are trying to have it both ways.

Brigham Young said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).

Since he said that when he was the “prophet”, then anything he said in his speeches or sermons should be considered prophetic. Including the Adam-god doctrine.

Just because someone came along later and changed things around, doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered doctrine at the time.

Pick a side, any side, just pick one.

Understanding the use of language is pretty important in any context, but particularly when trying to pin something on someone when they are not around to re-explain, clarify, amplify, correct a misunderstanding, or whatever. BY is departed to the spirit world.

He did use the contraction “and” within the sentence you quoted. The sentence says that the subject is Brigham Young–“I”. Does anything you have read on the subject demonstrate conclusively that BY “preached” the sermon wherein he is quoted as having said “thus and so” about Adam (which could actually mean an earlier Adam than the Adam described in Genesis–who knows what was on BY’s mind?, not I)–and “sent it out to the children of men” meaning he had looked at the piece of writing, edited it, decided it conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey, and “sent it out” in written form? I think not.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You do cause me to laugh so very often.

I am so very glad. I believe humor makes people live longer.

This has been asked and answered many times. Let me be crystal clear 1) Was BY a prophet? Yes absolutely!

Except when he wasn’t? Or maybe only when it is convenient for you? Or maybe only when he said he things you like?

1. Was BY a man? Yes, absolutely!

Red herring.

1. Can a prophet talk as a prophet and still talk as a man? Yes, absolutely? Was the Adam-God theory every scripture for the LDS Church? No, absolutely not!

Not so fast. BY said it during a sermon. BY said it was doctrine. He also said, Brigham Young said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses 13:95). Now, are you calling Brigham Young a liar?

Was it declared false doctrine? Yes, absolutely!

Hmmmm…so then you admit that BY taught false doctrine. The test, according to what I was taught as LDS, is if a person teach false doctrine, he is a false prophet. Now you have admitted BY taught false doctrine, therefore, you have declared he was a false prophet.

Does having personal thoughts or ideas for a man deny him from being a prophet? Absolutely not.

Ah, but BY did not teach this as personal thoughts. He taught it as a prophet. He claimed it was scripture. Now, was he lying? A simple yes or no will do.

If an individual has not read the Old Testament and gained a clear understanding of how fragile, mortal, and imperfect prophets of God are, then you simple need STOP talking and read about God and his prophets!

Can you show me in the Bible where a proiphet taught false doctrine about God? That, my friend, was another red herring. BY taught, according to you, false doctrine. Jesus was very clear about people who taught doctrine.

After you have done that, let’s talk for a little while about prophets.

Sir, I already have. So we can talk awhile now.

Respectfully in Christ,

Thomas More

 

[SirThomasMore]

Understanding the use of language is pretty important in any context, but particularly when trying to pin something on someone when they are not around to re-explain, clarify, amplify, correct a misunderstanding, or whatever. BY is departed to the spirit world.

He did use the contraction “and” within the sentence you quoted. The sentence says that the subject is Brigham Young–“I”. Does anything you have read on the subject demonstrate conclusively that BY “preached” the sermon wherein he is quoted as having said “thus and so” about Adam (which could actually mean an earlier Adam than the Adam described in Genesis–who knows what was on BY’s mind?, not I)–and “sent it out to the children of men” meaning he had looked at the piece of writing, edited it, decided it conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey, and “sent it out” in written form? I think not.

Yes, I read the sermons he preached that Adam was God. I saw the articles in the LDS Paper from back then where it discussed what he taught.

So, yes…thank you for clarifying. It was taught as scripture.

 

[cothrige]

Cothrige,
Thank you for your kind comments and very kind approach. What a delight!

Yes, LDS view creation as “within eternity”, but it is important to use the word “time” within a context of a specific dimension that is established by God for His purposes, so our “time” dimension is definitely nothing at all like His eternity dimension and His all-knowing ability to see all future and past as in the eternal present.

All the best to you in your spiritual exploration, whether to just understand others better or to stretch your own thought processes about the loving God who has given us so many wonderful gifts for our blessing.

Many thanks for this follow-up. I must say this is very fascinating stuff. Perhaps you will entertain another question from me. You use the word dimension, and I wonder if that is a term which is used in LDS theology, or if it rather simply reflects the best choice before you to convey your thoughts? BTW, thinking of that generally, is there perhaps a catechism of sorts for LDS teaching? Maybe a website with basic descriptions?

Again, thanks for all the help. It is very kind of so many to take so much time to answer silly questions like these for no reason other than satisfying personal curiosity. I do appreciate all the consideration.