Teachings of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Regarding the Godhead as Relates to Biblical Teachings

[ParkerD]

Here you go.

Look at posts #48, and #63

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=412362&page=5&highlight=take+your+marbles

See a pattern?

Here was the quote related to post 63:

"Sorry about my memory being wrong about the Powell name. John Wesley Powell was the one who had a position at the Smithsonian, and he followed the line of thinking of Lewis Henry Morgan. The film I watched had more of the interviews than the links, but yeah I should not have brought any of that up since I didn’t personally interview any of the people, nor have I personally seen any of the mounds. Information from third-hand sources can easily have been misunderstood, as shown by this example.

'Tell you what–just disregard the whole subject. It makes absolutely not a tiny bit of difference to me."

Here was your (name removed by moderator)ut:

Now Parker, don’t be that way.

I have noticed you use the “it doesn’t matter to me” statement more than once when your assertions have been debunked.

I hate to say it, but, it is becoming a “I’m taking my marbles and going home” kind of mantra.

All of this appeared to make a difference to you at some point, or you wouldn’t have posted on the thread to begin with. Right?

If you’re asking to continue that conversation, then I did go to the library after that point in time and look up what I could about John Wesley Powell and also about archeological finds in the United States during his lifetime. He was not much interested in archeological finds, but was interested in the language patterns of the indigenous tribes, and tried to relate them all.

I did find a few sources that confirmed that Europeans removed many artifacts during the 1800’s from United States archeological sites, for selling in Europe.

Powell had other interests than preserving the archeology of the ancient American tribes. He also believed the Native Americans should be assimilated into the United States culture. I think he had some wrong ideas in those areas.

I had not felt like the conversation about him needed to continue to be pursued at the point in time I suggested that you could “disregard the whole subject.” If it was a subject that interested you, you could obviously study it without my help. If not, why discuss something of non-interest? You had already demonstrated I was not an “expert”, and I agreed. So it seemed to be a subject not worth continuing to take the time to discuss.

Have you studied this subject in detail and have an interest in discussing John Wesley Powell? Maybe you could start a thread on that subject. That’s what I don’t care about–whether you do, or whether you don’t.

It’s entirely up to you what you study, what you do with your time, of course. That is what I meant by the words you took issue with.

I hope this has clarified, and if not then I don’t suppose any other response will do that for you.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
I am assuming that this is the question you have asked me to address. I assume you mean that Moses has been described as having been “translated” or in other words, “taken up into heaven” as happened to Elijah the Prophet.

They both appeared during a vision Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836. I assume that at that point they were resurrected and appeared in their resurrected bodies.

But you also are probably aware that Moses and “Elias” appeared to the Savior and to Peter, James and John as described in Matthew 17 as follows:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

So Moses in that experience was appearing in his bodily form, although not yet resurrected since Christ had not yet begun the power of resurrection on this earth.

I hope this has helped to answer your question.

Parker - once again, it depends on how one interprets scripture.

The New American Bible explains that Matthew 17: 1-8 is to be understood as:
…It draws upon motifs from the Old Testament and noncanonical Jewish apocalyptic literature that express the presence of the heavenly and divine, e.g., brilliant light, white garments, and the overshadowing cloud.

The Douay-Rheims Bible says about Matthew 17: 1-8:
All interpreters agree that Elias appeared in his own body, but various are their opinions with regard to the apparition of Moses.

 

[Jay53]

Hi, Catholic20064,
Thanks for writing this post above so I can clarify several points.

First, you do not qualify to “head to Outer Darkness”. Those who qualify for that are those who deny Christ and deny the Holy Spirit when they have full knowledge and have been bathed in the light of the revelation of the Holy Spirit yet turn against it, fight it, and deny its revelatory truth. Even the idea you expressed here shows you did not have enough understanding to have turned against revealed knowledge and started fighting against it.

What I had written, put another way, was that a person does not scorn the Book of Mormon while following the Holy Spirit, and that if they have the Holy Spirit with them while reading the Book of Mormon then they will find that the truths in the Book of Mormon “ring true” (but only if they have the Holy Spirit and not a spirit of scorn.) This does not mean one will necessarily even care to read the Book of Mormon, but if they do decide to read it and do it with fervent desire to understand truths in their life then they will not scorn it.

But as far as your religious choice, that is fine and it leads you exactly to the **kinds of rewards you have been promised by your religious leaders for the resurrection **you will receive after the spirit world. Outer darkness isn’t in that picture, I don’t think, unless they have told you it is.

This is the kind of arrogance and condescension that really ticks me off. We have not been promised anything by “our religious leaders”. Our religious leader is GOD: FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT!!!

 

[twopekinguys]

This is the kind of arrogance and condescension that really ticks me off. We have not been promised anything by “our religious leaders”. Our religious leader is GOD: FATHER, SON & HOLY SPIRIT!!!

Absolutely correct!!

What I also find amusing is that he is making the determination who is or is not headed for “outer darkness”. I thought that was God’s job.

 

[lax16]

Mormons believe that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon with sincerity of heart will come to believe it is true. If you don’t come to believe it is true, you obviously weren’t sincere in your attempt because God’s promise is to everyone. So they would tell you to keep reading until you finally accept it as true. That is why these days the LDS Church emphasizes to its members they read from the Book of Mormon everyday. It’s more important to LDS to read the Book of Mormon than it is for them to read any other scripture. This especially began to be emphasized during the LDS Presidency of Ezra Taft Benson. I am only speculating, but this admonition may have come about because it was becoming obvious through modern scholarship that the Book of Mormon didn’t measure up. It was necessary to inculcate Mormon members with the idea the Book of Mormon was the major key to their faith. God’s approval was, in a special way, upon those who read the Book of Mormon daily and was the only way to keep from losing your faith.

Okay, but can’t someone read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and still have questions? I guess if someone was born into the LDS faith, they may not have questions about the timeline, DNA, etc.
But what about potential converts? Can they really be expected not to ask questions or to wonder about inconsistencies?

 

[Jay53]

The people you mentioned at the end of your post may have never read the Book of Mormon or even heard of it. God gives the Holy Spirit with no respecter of persons, but indeed relying on their personal sincerity and faith. The Book of Mormon explains that, as does the Bible. (As I have stated before, the Book of Mormon does not “contradict what God revealed before” (meaning contradict the Bible) nor does it “change His truth”.

Mormonism denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. That is changing the Truth as revealed by Jesus Christ. Quite honestly, I don’t know if that is specifically in the BoM or is contained in other LDS scripture, but that is a HUGE point for me leading me to believe that Mormonism isn’t true.

As I have mentioned previously, the two biggest points of Catholicism that I have absolutely no doubt about are the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist. There are many other things of my faith that I believe to be true simply because they are part of our Church - and I know that there are reasons for the beliefs and Scriptural support for them, but, for me, they are not on the same level as these two Sacraments. For me, it doesn’t matter what anyone argues about their own faith because I know every other church is false based on the fact that I know Jesus is present in the Eucharist and that He has forgiven my sins through His Catholic priests.

The Holy Spirit clearly confirmed for St. Padre Pio the Truth of the Eucharist and his priesthood authority to forgive sins (in persona Christi) through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. St. Padre Pio was also gifted with the stigmata, the wounds of Christ. Yet, Mormonism denies these Truths about Catholic Sacraments. How would someone such as Padre Pio read the BoM? If he thought it could be true, wouldn’t he subsequently have to deny the reality of his life and what the Holy Spirit has already confirmed to him to be true? If he doesn’t believe the BoM would you suggest to him that he didn’t have a “fervent” enough desire? Or that he was reading the BoM with scorn? The evidence of his life clearly shows that he was devoted to God. (And yet Mormonism would also have us believe that he was somehow “incomplete” because he wasn’t married. )

The Book of Mormon does not need to be “relevant” to someone and yet not be true for other people. It can be “relevant” to many people, irrelevant to others, and all of those people can be living by truths from the Holy Spirit that are relevant to them and meaningful and they have specifically asked for help with in their life.

I don’t think a person approaching a reading of the Book of Mormon with scorn in their heart is going to get any kind of answer at all from the Holy Spirit about whether it is true, or not, or whether it contains truths, or not. The Holy Spirit does not foster scorn.

As someone else said, not everyone who reads the BoM and finds it to be false has read it with “scorn in their heart”. That’s my point - you seem to believe that no one could possibly find this book to be false if they truly and sincerely are desiring truth and the Holy Spirit in their life. That is simply not true.

 

[Catholic20064]

Okay, but can’t someone read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and still have questions? I guess if someone was born into the LDS faith, they may not have questions about the timeline, DNA, etc.
But what about potential converts? Can they really be expected not to ask questions or to wonder about inconsistencies?

Of course they can have questions. Mormons are expected to believe in the Book of Mormon even if they have questions regarding it. They are supposed to believe it based on faith alone in the witness received when they prayed about the Book of Mormon. That witness is supposed to be enough. Of course, I have questions about the resurrection and a lot of other things, but I believe in Christianity based on faith.

 

[lax16]

Of course they can have questions. Mormons are expected to believe in the Book of Mormon even if they have questions regarding it. They are supposed to believe it based on faith alone in the witness received when they prayed about the Book of Mormon. That witness is supposed to be enough. Of course, I have questions about the resurrection and a lot of other things, but I believe in Christianity based on faith.

Okay, but what if these questions are roadblocks? Who answers the questions? Are Mormons/potential converts encouraged to do research in order to answer their questions?

Faith is a wonderful gift and can get us through times of uncertainty - but I believe that faith coupled with study will answer most questions.

What types of questions do you have about the resurrection? Are they a roadblock for you or are you studying your way through them?

 

[twopekinguys]

Here was the quote related to post 63:

Here was your (name removed by moderator)ut:

If you’re asking to continue that conversation, then I did go to the library after that point in time and look up what I could about John Wesley Powell and also about archeological finds in the United States during his lifetime. He was not much interested in archeological finds, but was interested in the language patterns of the indigenous tribes, and tried to relate them all.

I did find a few sources that confirmed that Europeans removed many artifacts during the 1800’s from United States archeological sites, for selling in Europe.

Powell had other interests than preserving the archeology of the ancient American tribes. He also believed the Native Americans should be assimilated into the United States culture. I think he had some wrong ideas in those areas.

I had not felt like the conversation about him needed to continue to be pursued at the point in time I suggested that you could “disregard the whole subject.” If it was a subject that interested you, you could obviously study it without my help. If not, why discuss something of non-interest? You had already demonstrated I was not an “expert”, and I agreed. So it seemed to be a subject not worth continuing to take the time to discuss.

Have you studied this subject in detail and have an interest in discussing John Wesley Powell? Maybe you could start a thread on that subject. That’s what I don’t care about–whether you do, or whether you don’t.

It’s entirely up to you what you study, what you do with your time, of course. That is what I meant by the words you took issue with.

I hope this has clarified, and if not then I don’t suppose any other response will do that for you.

I was just pointing out your pattern of taking your marbles and going home which you use so often.

You will notice in Ricko’s post #63, he detailed numerous times where you have used that tactic.

 

[Catholic20064]

Okay, but what if these questions are roadblocks? Who answers the questions? Are Mormons/potential converts encouraged to do research in order to answer their questions?

Faith is a wonderful gift and can get us through times of uncertainty - but I believe that faith coupled with study will answer most questions.

What types of questions do you have about the resurrection? Are they a roadblock for you or are you studying your way through them?

I just used the resurrection as an example of something that in the end has to be taken on faith. It’s impossible to prove or disprove it. I just accept it because God has blessed me faith even though it is hard to imagine a dead person could really rise again. That faith is simply a gift from God.

The Mormons see the Book of Mormon in the same way. I would disagree with them because I think there is enough evidence about ancient Native Americans to understand the Book of Mormon is false. The Book of Mormon fits too easily into a literature that was popular in the early 19th century claiming that Native Americans were one of the lost tribes of Israel. The evidence is just not there. At least with the resurrection I have the example of the changed lives of the apostles after they personally experienced Jesus risen from the dead.

 

[lax16]

I just used the resurrection as an example of something that in the end has to be taken on faith. It’s impossible to prove or disprove it. I just accept it because God has blessed me faith even though it is hard to imagine a dead person could really rise again. That faith is simply a gift from God.

The Mormons see the Book of Mormon in the same way. I would disagree with them because I think there is enough evidence about ancient Native Americans to understand the Book of Mormon is false. The Book of Mormon fits too easily into a literature that was popular in the early 19th century claiming that Native Americans were one of the lost tribes of Israel. The evidence is just not there. At least with the resurrection I have the example of the changed lives of the apostles after they personally experienced Jesus risen from the dead.

Excellent point!

 

[FrancesDS]

I have several questions and things about the Mormon teachings that I hope can be clarified or explained in this forum.

Related to Mormon teachings, my first questions are:

What is the difference between a ‘God’ and a ‘god’?
What is the role of each?
Are there more than one of each?
If not already answered by the above, what is our relaitonship to them?

I have several more but do not want to overwhelm this post.

Thanks.
Frances DS

 

[FrancesDS]

I need to add one more question to the above.

I had been talking to a Mormon on Mormon.org chat and he refused to discuss this next question further because it is not ‘basic doctrine’ and it was more than he wanted to teach me. (He told me I needed to stick with basics because I was trying to learn ‘calculus before learning the other stuff first’.)

I had asked him if Mormon teachings taught the following: that there are Gods of other worlds but that they are just of no concern to use because we only worship God Our Father.

He would not answer. He said that “God’s God is not a basic doctrine”.

Hopefully those on this forum will answer this one as well as the above so that I know what the Mormon faith truly teaches.

Thanks
Frances DS

 

[Third_Day]

=dianaiad;6561426]The point is, Third Day, is that if you are talking about LDS doctrine and ideas, you need to talk about LDS Doctrine and ideas in relation to what we think they are, not what you think they should be

My problem is I can’t find out what Mormon doctrine is. The people on Mormon.org don’t seem to have a clue. THey will say “let me ask someone” and they never come back. Is there an official book that has all of the official Mormon Doctrine. What you are telling me may be your own interpretation of what they believe. Catholics have a Catechism, what do Mormons have?

 

[dianaiad]

My problem is I can’t find out what Mormon doctrine is. The people on Mormon.org don’t seem to have a clue. THey will say “let me ask someone” and they never come back. Is there an official book that has all of the official Mormon Doctrine. What you are telling me may be your own interpretation of what they believe. Catholics have a Catechism, what do Mormons have?

Well…not a catechism, and you are quite right, that does cause some difficulties. On the other hand, it makes things a lot simpler, in that our basic beliefs are very basic, very fundamental—and everything other than those very basic beliefs are in the realm of 'well, our best guess and beliefs are such and such, but we don’t precisely KNOW…" And those fundamental beliefs are those which are found in the basic scriptures.

I know, I know…but Catholics have had 1500 years, plus or minus, to get a 'Holy Tradition" and a catechism down…and you didn’t BEGIN with one! Not only that, but the catechism changes even now, as your leaders refine the way to present your doctrine to you. Your best option, I’m afraid, is to ask a Mormon, and figure that the True Scott principle applies. That Mormon believes what he or she says she does.

Period.

…and he or she might disagree with the LDS neighbor. That’s OK, actually, except on some very basic, and I do mean basic, principles and doctrines. Most of those can be found in the Thirteen Articles of Faith (which together comprise a sort of ‘creed,’ even though we don’t like to call it that…)

That, and the missionary lessons give you the very basics. “Preach My Gospel” does…and you can find that on LDS.org, too. Your problem, and I know that this is going to frustrate you, is that you are asking calculus questions before you learn arithmatic. It’s not that we don’t WANT to answer the ‘hard stuff.’

It’s that until you understand the basic vocabulary and the ‘easy stuff’ from our POV, you won’t GET the 'hard stuff." We aren’t using the same vocabulary! Our conversation about Gods and planets and how the universe is made is a case in point; if you knew the basics about our beliefs, you would never have asked for an example of one of our prayers!

We aren’t trying to keep secrets. We simply want to be sure we all understand the vocabulary. …and the same thing holds true for Catholicism or any other ‘ism…’ There is a REASON that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, spoke about milk before meat…first, lay the foundation. First, teach addition and subtraction. First, teach the color wheel. THEN you build the church, talk about the use of algebraic formulae…and paint the masterpiece. This principle is mocked a LOT–mostly by people who want to skip the basics and go straight to the hard, interesting stuff. The problem is, mock as one might, before you can understand the interesting stuff, you HAVE to understand the easy stuff.

It’s not an option for any of us, and it goes for me learning about Catholicism, too.

 

[ParkerD]

The introduction.

How can a person read a book from cover to cover when they have questions that go unanswered? Let me guess, a person who has questions has a spirt of scorn, right?

Please give the LDS definition of a “spirit of scorn” and would this person be considered anti-Mormon?

Lax16,
I have been very busy and hadn’t had time to respond to some of your questions. I suppose if I answer you may happen back to this thread and read this. (I’ll go ahead and PM you also to let you know I responded.)

“A person who has questions” does not equate to having a spirit of scorn.

A person who tells himself or herself that God does things a certain way and therefore if their expectation is not met as they begin, for example, reading the Book of Mormon, in that things happen differently in the Book of Mormon or the “introduction” is out of alignment with their expectation of how God would do things, then they are going to bring their preconceived expectation to the reading experience, and that can soon develop into a “spirit of scorn” or in other words, disdain for anything to do with such a book, so of course if they continue to read they will merely confirm their preconceived expectations and it will hold no interest for them.

There is a larger issue than whether a person is “anti-Mormon” which to me means not much of anything other than that they may have negative feelings about Mormons. The larger issue is allowing God to really, truly be in charge of how He does things, and to allow that the Bible may not be the only way He wants to communicate with people on earth through a scriptural writing. If a person tells himself or herself that the Bible is the only scripture that ever can possibly be, then such a person is going to dismiss the Book of Mormon, period, and if looking at it at all will look at it with disdain and that would be the equivalent of a “spirit of scorn”. (I am not familiar with that phrase having been used by anyone other than when I used it, so I am not providing a “Mormon definition”–just using a few words to try and convey an idea.)

Have a good day. As to your other question about Moses, I never really understood it so I didn’t attempt to answer it.

 

[FrancesDS]

Well…not a catechism, and you are quite right, that does cause some difficulties. On the other hand, it makes things a lot simpler, in that our basic beliefs are very basic, very fundamental—and everything other than those very basic beliefs are in the realm of 'well, our best guess and beliefs are such and such, but we don’t precisely KNOW…" And those fundamental beliefs are those which are found in the basic scriptures.

I know, I know…but Catholics have had 1500 years, plus or minus, to get a 'Holy Tradition" and a catechism down…and you didn’t BEGIN with one! Not only that, but the catechism changes even now, as your leaders refine the way to present your doctrine to you. Your best option, I’m afraid, is to ask a Mormon, and figure that the True Scott principle applies. That Mormon believes what he or she says she does.

That, and the missionary lessons give you the very basics. “Preach My Gospel” does…and you can find that on LDS.org, too. Your problem, and I know that this is going to frustrate you, is that you are asking calculus questions before you learn arithmatic. It’s not that we don’t WANT to answer the ‘hard stuff.’

It’s that until you understand the basic vocabulary and the ‘easy stuff’ from our POV, you won’t GET the 'hard stuff." We aren’t using the same vocabulary! Our conversation about Gods and planets and how the universe is made is a case in point; if you knew the basics about our beliefs, you would never have asked for an example of one of our prayers!

We aren’t trying to keep secrets. We simply want to be sure we all understand the vocabulary. …and the same thing holds true for Catholicism or any other ‘ism…’ There is a REASON that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, spoke about milk before meat…first, lay the foundation. First, teach addition and subtraction. First, teach the color wheel. THEN you build the church, talk about the use of algebraic formulae…and paint the masterpiece. This principle is mocked a LOT–mostly by people who want to skip the basics and go straight to the hard, interesting stuff. The problem is, mock as one might, before you can understand the interesting stuff, you HAVE to understand the easy stuff.

It’s not an option for any of us, and it goes for me learning about Catholicism, too.

I have to disagree with this.
How do you know what a person is ready for? They may be ready for calculus. And even if they are not ready, if they are asking deep questions, so what? Why not answer them. If it is more than they can handle, then they will see that and it will show them that they are not ready for that yet. But to TELL SOMEONE what they are not ready for is assuming a lot.

The other concern with this idea is that if I were to decide to be a part of something, such as the Mormon faith for example, I would want to know exactly what I am getting into.
Sure I may not know every detail before making my decision, but if there is a topic that I am interested in, I would hope a member of whatever group I am considering or looking into would delve into it, as much as I am interested in going or as much as I feel that I need to go before deciding.

If someone were interested in becoming Catholic and wanted to know everything that the Church teaches about Mary for example - what the doctrines are, Scriptural evidence for it, wants to read the Church Fathers comments, etc. No matter how deep that person wants to go, I will take them there and answer every question I can. If I do not know all of the answers, I will find someone who does to help them.
If this is something that they feel is important to understand before they enter the Catholic Church, then i will help them find and understand the answers.
Sure, they may not learn or understand every detail on the teachings of Mary, but I will do everything I can to help them learn as much as they want to know.
If they ask deep questions, I will not assume that this is ‘too much for them’. I will answer their questions. IF it confuses them, well then I would let them guide how basic or how deep we go with the conversation. I will not decide for them how deep we can and cannot go unless they just leave it open for me to teach them how I wish.
IF they are asking questions, who am I to tell them what is ‘above their head’? If the answer is, then they will soon realize it…

(to be continued)

Frances DS

 

[FrancesDS]

(Continued)

And as far as the Catholic Church having been around ‘longer’ than the Mormon faith and that is why they have a catechism and Mormons do not. There was no Catholic Catechism like we have now until late 20th century! And yet, Catholics prior to that would have been able to tell you what the doctrines were!
People would have known, or at least known how to find out, which of the writings of the Church Fathers were orthodox and consistent with the Church’s teachings and which were not. If a bishop for example had spoken something contrary to doctrine, it would be known and publicly stated as such. People would have been able to go to a Church official easily and ask ‘is this doctrine or not’ and they would have received an answer. One could have found an answer rather than something vague and wavering saying this may or may not be just an opinion. Early on in the Church when questions were raised about doctrines, decisions were made by those of authority and the people knew one way or the other about a large number of doctrines. There was a deep understanding of the faith early on in the Church and this is evident by the writings of the Early Church Fathers!

However, my experience with Mormons that I have spoken with is not like this. It seems that if I ask anything deeper about the articles of faith is often told to be either opinion and not doctrine or I am told it is too advanced, as I mentioned above. It seems like the answers either do not want to be shared or no one knows for sure. I quoted the Prophet Joseph Smith about the idea of God’s eternal progression to a Mormon and there was still wavering and he would not answer if that was doctrine.
It is just very difficult to learn the Mormon beliefs. And I am sincerely trying to better understand and learn them. Even if in the end I disagree, the problem is that I cannot find anyone open to explaining the beliefs in any depth.

Even though no one answered my questions above yet, I think I have found some answers myself recently from a Mormon website related to God and man and the idea of eternal progression that has been discussed on this forum at times, particularly can man become a God (big G) and rule his own world or planet or universe…

Gospel and Principles (A Manual for New Mormon Converts)

Chapter 47 -
"Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation…Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings…They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family…They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge…"

“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)…”

Here is my understanding of the above. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything or misstating anything:

The above shows that God was once a man like us and has progressed to exhaltation to become a God and to become Our Heavenly Father.
We too can progress depending on what we do in this life and become just as God is. We can have our own spirit children and be their God, be their Heavenly Father. We can have all glory, all power, all dominion.
Chapter 1 of the Gospels and Principles shows how God organized this world. So by the above, we will have the power to organize and rule our own world.

I have found some explanations in this Gospels and Principles about the Mormon beliefs which is a little more clear though there are still some holes…

But I will continue to try to better understand…

Frances DS

 

[ParkerD]

(Continued)

… It seems that if I ask anything deeper about the articles of faith is often told to be either opinion and not doctrine or I am told it is too advanced, as I mentioned above. …
It is just very difficult to learn the Mormon beliefs. And I am sincerely trying to better understand and learn them. Even if in the end I disagree, the problem is that I cannot find anyone open to explaining the beliefs in any depth.

Even though no one answered my questions above yet, I think I have found some answers myself recently from a Mormon website related to God and man and the idea of eternal progression that has been discussed on this forum at times, particularly can man become a God (big G) and rule his own world or planet or universe…

Gospel and Principles (A Manual for New Mormon Converts)

Chapter 47 -
"Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation…Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings…They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family…They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge…"

“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)…”

Here is my understanding of the above. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding anything or misstating anything:

The above shows that God was once a man like us and has progressed to exhaltation to become a God and to become Our Heavenly Father.
We too can progress depending on what we do in this life and become just as God is. We can have our own spirit children and be their God, be their Heavenly Father. We can have all glory, all power, all dominion.
Chapter 1 of the Gospels and Principles shows how God organized this world. So by the above, we will have the power to organize and rule our own world.
…
I will continue to try to better understand…

Frances DS

Frances DS,
I noticed your post and noticed that you seem to have used the Gospel Principles manual that is older than the current manual, and it would seem important to know that that particular lesson has been slightly revised in its wording. Here is the first part of the current “Exaltation” lesson (available on lds.org under Sunday School manuals):

When we lived with our Heavenly Father, He explained a plan for our progression. We could become like Him, an exalted being. The plan required that we be separated from Him and come to earth. This separation was necessary to prove whether we would obey our Father’s commandments even though we were no longer in His presence. The plan provided that when earth life ended, we would be judged and rewarded according to the degree of our faith and obedience.
…

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings.

If you look at some of the differences, you may notice that the sentence about the “same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” has been taken out. I think this is an important change, in that the ambiguity was decreased since there is no real doctrinal source for that particular wording. So the conclusion that you drew from the earlier lesson material, wherein you have assumed that LDS belief is that men can eventually progress way out in eternity to become a “Heavenly Father” to a created, populated world like our Heavenly Father, and that He did that by living a mortal life on a world like ours, is drawn from a lesson that was viewed as needing to be changed to be more in line with what Joseph Smith taught on that subject (which wasn’t a great deal, but wasn’t that).

I think as I have read Joseph Smith’s King Follett Sermon many times, that the wording he gave including the quote he used from the book of John, gives the impression that the Father lived on an earth just as Christ did, and that Christ did what He had seen His Father do, which to me means that the Father was a perfect Man of Holiness when He lived on an earth and became a resurrected Being. Joseph Smith never said that to become like God would mean that exalted beings will be worshiped like Heavenly Father is worshiped. The sense is more of becoming perfect with perfect knowledge and perfect love and faith, and being a creator including organizing spirit children from their existing intelligence.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of post to Frances DS:

It really is like jumping right into Calculus to try and understand this kind of doctrine, since to understand it one would absolutely need the Holy Spirit first of all or it will make no sense, and one would need to understand that sanctification by the Holy Spirit and being a joint heir with Jesus Christ really does mean that a person can become perfect and be given the glory that Christ promised to the faithful, and thus be made a “ruler” while at the same time being the “servant of all.”

It is like jumping from addition to Calculus without patiently learning all the other mathematical principles that lead to understanding Calculus. It just doesn’t do the learner much good, or give them any insight into understanding other people for whom the doctrine of “becoming like Christ” who inherited His Father’s throne by being the Heir and by being perfect in His life on earth, makes sense.