Question for LDS

[cothrige]

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.

Absolutely, I do understand that it is probably beyond definitions, at least to a degree. I think it would be very hard to discuss the Catholic view in any way which would make real sense, so I am just glad you aren’t asking me lay out our view of this, as I would only embarrass myself.

Let me see if I am understanding the distinction here of spiritual vs. material, and what it means here. I take it that your understanding would be that man has existed from eternity as a spiritual being? Would that be right? Only at a point in history then would man get a physical body? Am I following you on that?

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.

Hmm, okay that may answer what I just asked above. But, I wonder if you could elaborate on just what you may mean by “most elemental form of spirit matter by which God created our spirit bodies”? Are these spirit bodies something like how we Catholics may think of angels, or maybe as we are after our death but before the resurrection? How are the intelligences different?

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.

I take it then that, in LDS understanding, Jesus is not a creation or one of the intelligences you mention above? He is eternal in a different way than man would be? Am I understanding this correctly?

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.

Yes, it is probably hard to fit that statement above into any conventional Catholic understanding of the Deity or man, and it could certainly seem scandalous to us. I do find it interesting as it seems so pregnant. “Man is as God was once…” certainly does seem to invite a great deal of imagery, doesn’t it? But, it seems like you are interpreting this in terms of the life of Jesus and not in terms of man as a creature. Would that be right? If so does that mean that the LDS think that God the Father may have at one time somewhere taken life as a man as Jesus did? What purpose would the LDS see for that? Would it be for the same reasons as Jesus, i.e. to be saviour, perhaps for people on another world than this one, if such might exist?

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.

Absolutely, that makes sense. We can perhaps find some commonality in faith, but I am certain we can find commonality as people. I am curious about your faith and want to know more about what LDS really believe regarding creation and God. You and others have very kindly taken the time to answer me. That is real conversation, and it leads to nothing but good will, knowledge and mutual understanding. Not as people, of course, but as persons. I know neither of us represent anybody but ourselves, but it is nothing but a pleasure to get a chance to get to know people and share some of what we care about. I thank you all for giving me that opportunity.

 

[zerinus]

BTW, thinking of that generally, is there perhaps a catechism of sorts for LDS teaching? Maybe a website with basic descriptions?

The Church does not have a “catechism” as such, but it does have a website that explains the basic teachings of the Church, which you can see here. The Church’s main website, which has links to everything else, can be seen here.

P.S. The nearest thing that the Church has to a “catechism” is a book called “Gospel Principles” which is a course of study for investigators and newly baptized members of the Church. You can read, listen to, or download the entire book (or individual chapters) as PDF files here.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

Yeah, what he said!!

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

If you don’t know what was on BY’s mind, why are you trying to tell us?

BTW, before you give an English lesson, maybe you should check up on a few things. Primarily, the word “and” is not a contraction, it is a conjunction.

Conjunction
“any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.”

Contraction
“a shortened form of a word or group of words, with the omitted letters often replaced in written English by an apostrophe, as e’er for ever, isn’t for is not, dep’t for department.”

See dictionary.com if you doubt me.

Good try though, wanna try again?

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Cothrige,
I think Zerinus has provided some good links. The book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder is a great resource for exploring LDS teachings using some Biblical basic foundation scriptures.

In answer to your question about the use of the word “dimension”, that was my choice of the word for describing time. Here are a few verses from Doctrine and Covenants 121 that use other words to describe the idea that time is appointed by God within spheres of existence:

30 And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—

Thanks for your probing questions.

 

[ParkerD]

Cothrige,
Here is another more amplified set of verses about how God uses time as a dimension within the universe:

Doctrine and Covenants 88: 40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.
42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;
43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.
44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.
45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?
47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.
49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

 

[ParkerD]

If you don’t know what was on BY’s mind, why are you trying to tell us?

I’m not trying to “tell you” anything at all. You can think whatever you want to think, but you did quote a statement from Brigham Young, and made a point using that statement.

BTW, before you give an English lesson, maybe you should check up on a few things. Primarily, the word “and” is not a contraction, it is a conjunction.

Conjunction
“any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.”

Contraction
“a shortened form of a word or group of words, with the omitted letters often replaced in written English by an apostrophe, as e’er for ever, isn’t for is not, dep’t for department.”

See dictionary.com if you doubt me.

Good try though, wanna try again?

Nice editing catch. I probably used the word “contraction” wrong in elementary school also. I think I mixed up the two words even back then.

But for other readers (not you), the illustration of the need for an edit before something is “sent out” and attributed to someone as their “gospel truth” teaching–even such a simple thing as the use of the wrong word–is an apt illustration.

So, thanks. (That is for you.)

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m not trying to “tell you” anything at all. You can think whatever you want to think, but you did quote a statement from Brigham Young, and made a point using that statement.

Nice editing catch. I probably used the word “contraction” wrong in elementary school also. I think I mixed up the two words even back then.

But for other readers (not you), the illustration of the need for an edit before something is “sent out” and attributed to someone as their “gospel truth” teaching–even such a simple thing as the use of the wrong word–is an apt illustration.

So, thanks. (That is for you.)

Also, considering that a “conjunction” connects things, that kind of messes up your whole commentary on BY’s statement.

 

[cothrige]

The Church does not have a “catechism” as such, but it does have a website that explains the basic teachings of the Church, which you can see here. The Church’s main website, which has links to everything else, can be seen here.

P.S. The nearest thing that the Church has to a “catechism” is a book called “Gospel Principles” which is a course of study for investigators and newly baptized members of the Church. You can read, listen to, or download the entire book (or individual chapters) as PDF files here.

Those look very helpful. I will go and check them out.

Thank you very much for all the help.

 

[cothrige]

In answer to your question about the use of the word “dimension”, that was my choice of the word for describing time…

Thanks for the further information. I was curious about dimension simply because if it were an LDS theological term I thought I might need to be careful to look for a technical meaning, otherwise context would clearly be my guide.

Thanks for your probing questions.

Thank you for all the in depth answers. I do feel much clearer on these issues now.

 

[barnesms]

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.

This is tiresome. Let me guess, you would prefer to call all the LDS prophets false prophets. Great, knock yourselves out. LDS will call the true prophets when they spoke as prophets. Great, knock yourselves out. As if it wasn’t obvious, LDS also don’t think popes are true servants of God and that they currently do not hold the keys of salvation. Well, DUH, who cares; Catholics feel just the opposite. I wonder if there would be any value in repeating all the outlandish things some of the popes have said and stated was doctrine only to have it reversed. Would you like to talk about that? Or even better, how about we talk about all the ones that did not observe the vow of chastity? Would this make you feel better; would it have any purpose in an ecumenical discussion? We could start a new thread and call it, Who has the worst leaders, Mormons or Catholics? What is certain is that it does not belong on this thread.

It really is tiresome and goes against my better nature, but I warn both you, you don’t want to go down that path with anyone who is learned in history. You will lose every time.

 

[SirThomasMore]

This is tiresome. Let me guess, you would prefer to call all the LDS prophets false prophets.

With all due respect, it was you who called him a false prophet. You said the scripture he gave was considered false doctrine. By definition, a prophet who teaches false doctrine is a false prophet

Great, knock yourselves out. LDS will call the true prophets when they spoke as prophets.

Unfortunately, sir, it has been proven that when BY said Adam was our God and brought one of his wives, Eve, from another planet, he WAS speaking as the prophet

As if it wasn’t obvious, LDS also don’t think popes are true servants of God and that they currently do not hold the keys of salvation.

That is ok. At least I have not heard of any of them say that Adam is God or that there are men on the moon who look like Quakers

Catholics feel just the opposite. I wonder if there would be any value in repeating all the outlandish things some of the popes have said and stated was doctrine only to have it reversed.

I don;t know. It might. Of course, there you go again comparing Popes to Prophets. You somehow only want Prophets elevated to talkjing directly to God when it serves you

It really is tiresome and goes against my better nature, but I warn both you, you don’t want to go down that path with anyone who is learned in history. You will lose every time.

Actually, we will not lose. We do not believe Popes have direct conversations with God. So, if you want to compare people who have conversations with God and then make silly claims with people who do not talk to God and then make silly claims, go ahead. It will be fun

But it will only go to show that Mormons have false prophets and Catholics have had poor popes. I can live with that

 

[barnesms]

Let me see if I am understanding the distinction here of spiritual vs. material, and what it means here. I take it that your understanding would be that man has existed from eternity as a spiritual being? Would that be right? Only at a point in history then would man get a physical body? Am I following you on that?

Hmm, okay that may answer what I just asked above. But, I wonder if you could elaborate on just what you may mean by “most elemental form of spirit matter by which God created our spirit bodies”? Are these spirit bodies something like how we Catholics may think of angels, or maybe as we are after our death but before the resurrection? How are the intelligences different?

At this early state, call an intelligence a being would be going too far. It is my understanding that it is more elementary than that. It is an elemental form from which God made us into spirit children. It is not comparable to how Catholics think of angels; it is much more simplistic than that; there is a concept of otherness, but not a concept of being. An intelligence is not the equivalent of a spirit child or a spirit awaiting the resurrection.

I take it then that, in LDS understanding, Jesus is not a creation or one of the intelligences you mention above? He is eternal in a different way than man would be? Am I understanding this correctly?

This is even more complex. Jesus was God before creation. However, he is also thought of as the firstborn in the preexistence as well as the Son of God in this life. The conflict I find is that it is also said that Jesus was an intelligence. This is a difficult concept for me. Is or was Jesus a creature of God? You will find LDS who answer this in the negative and in the positive. Jesus was always God because he was always a member of the Godhead, yet he is the Son of God. The challenge for a LDS is that Jesus did not gain a physical body until after his mortal existence. The union of the spirit and the body is seen as a superior form of existence; if not, there would be no value in the resurrection.

…“Man is as God was once…” certainly does seem to invite a great deal of imagery, doesn’t it? But, it seems like you are interpreting this in terms of the life of Jesus and not in terms of man as a creature. Would that be right? If so does that mean that the LDS think that God the Father may have at one time somewhere taken life as a man as Jesus did? What purpose would the LDS see for that? Would it be for the same reasons as Jesus, i.e. to be Saviour, perhaps for people on another world than this one, if such might exist?

Based upon the scripture I quoted above, it seems evident that Jesus could only do what he saw the Father do. How do Catholics interpret that verse? LDS say that the purpose of God’s actions is to bring about the eternal life of humanity. To save humanity, Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was needed. This is very deep theological water. We believe that God’s creations are worlds without number; however, we also believe that Jesus’ sacrifice on this earth paid the price for all creation regardless of where those worlds are.

…That is real conversation, and it leads to nothing but good will, knowledge and mutual understanding. …I know neither of us represent anybody but ourselves, but it is nothing but a pleasure to get a chance to get to know people and share some of what we care about. I thank you all for giving me that opportunity.

Thank you for your kind and wise words. This quality of conversation is valuable to me. One of the things I hope to see is for LDS to learn more about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and so many other true, valuable teachings in Catholicism. It is my belief that as Christians come to know other Christians and focus on loving and serving God and each other, we can become a more righteous people and make a greater impact on the world at large.

 

[barnesms]

SirThomasMore:
This has nothing to do with this thread. If you wish to continue please start a new thread.

 

[ParkerD]

Also, considering that a “conjunction” connects things, that kind of messes up your whole commentary on BY’s statement.

Now you do have me puzzled.

The sentence you quoted plus your comment were as follows:

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.

The conjunction means that if you divide the sentence and start with the subject and make two sentences, then if you quote only one sentence and don’t include the connection that would mean “if and only if” in the statement as stated by the person, then you just created a meaning that was not intended by the statement. In other words, your comment did exactly that when you said “anything he said in his speeches or sermons should be considered prophetic.”

What he said (and you agreed that there is the conjunction AND and you provided the clear and simple meaning from the dictionary of what the word “and” brings to the meaning of the sentence) stipulated that he would do the “sending out” of the sermon. That means literally what it says–he is the deciding person about what is “sent out”. Not a newspaper reporter, not a scribe, not a journal-writer, not an editor, nobody but HIM.

If you still don’t get it, then Brigham Young is the subject of the compound sentence. Not a newspaper reporter. Not a scribe. Not an editor. Not a writer a hundred years later, or fifty years later, or whenever. Brigham Young would have had to be the “sender” of the specific text he wanted sent out “to the children of men” for it to fulfill the statement he made that you quoted. That was my point. That means it would be fully expected that he would take the time and deliberation to edit his “sermon” and decide whether he wants to “send it out”, or not. If not sent, then “scripture” didn’t happen within the context of his use of the word.

If you still don’t get it, then I give up.

 

[twopekinguys]

This is tiresome. Let me guess, you would prefer to call all the LDS prophets false prophets. Great, knock yourselves out. LDS will call the true prophets when they spoke as prophets. Great, knock yourselves out. As if it wasn’t obvious, LDS also don’t think popes are true servants of God and that they currently do not hold the keys of salvation. Well, DUH, who cares; Catholics feel just the opposite. I wonder if there would be any value in repeating all the outlandish things some of the popes have said and stated was doctrine only to have it reversed. Would you like to talk about that? Or even better, how about we talk about all the ones that did not observe the vow of chastity? Would this make you feel better; would it have any purpose in an ecumenical discussion? We could start a new thread and call it, Who has the worst leaders, Mormons or Catholics? What is certain is that it does not belong on this thread.

It really is tiresome and goes against my better nature, but I warn both you, you don’t want to go down that path with anyone who is learned in history. You will lose every time.

If this is really tiresome for you, then by all means don’t participate. You realize that is an option that is available to you right?

This thread isn’t about the Popes. (See title) If you would like to discuss that, please start another thread. Your attempt at diverting the conversation is not going to work, even though you have tried to get your trivial little digs in.

Also, I don’t believe that you are in a position to “warn” anyone about anything, and personally, I find the comment quite inflammatory.

BTW, where did I say anything about false prophets? Please provide a reference.

 

[twopekinguys]

Parker,

There is something wrong with your post above.

What is showing, is different than what shows up when I use the quote feature.

Technology is a strange thing.

 

[ParkerD]

Here it is again, as edited during my edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by twopekinguys
Also, considering that a “conjunction” connects things, that kind of messes up your whole commentary on BY’s statement.

Now you do have me puzzled.

The sentence you quoted plus your comment were as follows:

Quote:
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.

The conjunction means that if you divide the sentence and start with the subject and make two sentences, then if you quote only one sentence and don’t include the connection that would mean “if and only if” in the statement as stated by the person, then you just created a meaning that was not intended by the statement. In other words, your comment did exactly that when you said “anything he said in his speeches or sermons should be considered prophetic.”

What he said (and you agreed that there is the conjunction AND and you provided the clear and simple meaning from the dictionary of what the word “and” brings to the meaning of the sentence) stipulated that he would do the “sending out” of the sermon. That means literally what it says–he is the deciding person about what is “sent out”. Not a newspaper reporter, not a scribe, not a journal-writer, not an editor, nobody but HIM.

If you still don’t get it, then Brigham Young is the subject of the compound sentence. Not a newspaper reporter. Not a scribe. Not an editor. Not a writer a hundred years later, or fifty years later, or whenever. Brigham Young would have had to be the “sender” of the specific text he wanted sent out “to the children of men” for it to fulfill the statement he made that you quoted. That was my point. That means it would be fully expected that he would take the time and deliberation to edit his “sermon” and decide whether he wants to “send it out”, or not. If not sent by him, deliberately done, then “scripture” didn’t happen within the context of his use of the word.

If you still don’t get it, then I give up.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Wow. Nice try, Parker. Problem is, I read his sermon where he pronounced Adam was god. I read the newspaper articles where it was discussed. I read where BY said his sermons were scripture.

I truly admire the lengths you have gone to get around that. You have not succeeded, but I truly admire you for how hard you worked.

Be Blessed, Parker. Have a wonderful Sunday

 

[ParkerD]

Wow. Nice try, Parker. Problem is, I read his sermon where he pronounced Adam was god. I read the newspaper articles where it was discussed. I read where BY said his sermons were scripture.

I truly admire the lengths you have gone to get around that. You have not succeeded, but I truly admire you for how hard you worked.

Be Blessed, Parker. Have a wonderful Sunday

Great. The newspaper articles mean nothing. Go ahead and provide the entire quote including the context surrounding the quote, for your statement “where BY said his sermons were scripture”. I assume you will be able to do that. A diligent scholar would want to do that.

I am having a wonderful Sunday, and feel very blessed and very grateful for those many blessings in my life. God is truly loving and truly the Masterful Provider of great blessings to His children, and those blessings go forth throughout the earth.