Theological Divisions within Mormonism

[FabiusMaximus]

I have been browsing the Internet, and I’ve read that there are some quite significant differences between schools of thought on Mormonism.

I’ve always read that Mormons traditionally believe that God the Father was a man on another planet, that he was exalted, and together with a Heavenly Mother, sired Jesus Christ and all of humanity. If we hold true to Mormon teachings, we have the possibility of being exalted after death, with the possibility of becoming exalted gods ourselves.

Now I have also read that some Mormons do indeed believe that God is an eternal being from everlasting to everlasting and that exaltation does not necessarily mean becoming a divine being.

Can anyone familiar with Mormonism give greater understanding on these schools of thought and how they coexist the LDS Church? Does the Church itself hold an official position?

I’m hoping this doesn’t end up becoming a Christianity Vs Mormonism thread, there have been plenty of those already.

 

[truthseeker32]

Former Mormon, here. It is often difficult to pin down what Mormons believe, or what they are supposed to believe because their canon is much less defined than is the dogma of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and other faiths. To be temple-worthy and in good standing, a Mormon must answer these questions in the affirmative in a private meeting with their stake president:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

1. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

1. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

1. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

1. Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

1. Do you live the law of chastity?

1. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

1. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

1. Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
   Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

1. Are you a full-tithe payer? Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

1. Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

1. If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

Notice that this list leaves a lot of flexibility regarding how one is to believe when it comes to God, prophetic authority, and the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t say that a Mormon must believe that God the Father has a human body. It doesn’t say one must accept the Book of Mormon as actual history.

That said, there are many common beliefs among Mormons that have been reinforced by LDS leadership and the way in which Mormonism presents their faith to the world through art, literature, and other media. Thus it is sort of disingenuous when a Mormon says “well, technically I don’t have to believe that” when it has been the view promoted by the LDS church for over 100 years.

 

[ltwin]

Are we talking about just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or are we including other Latter Day Saint denominations that trace their roots back to Joseph Smith as well?

 

[jane_doe]

I have been browsing the Internet, and I’ve read that there are some quite significant differences between schools of thought on Mormonism.

I’ve always read that Mormons traditionally believe that God the Father was a man on another planet, that he was exalted, and together with a Heavenly Mother, sired Jesus Christ and all of humanity. If we hold true to Mormon teachings, we have the possibility of being exalted after death, with the possibility of becoming exalted gods ourselves.

Now I have also read that some Mormons do indeed believe that God is an eternal being from everlasting to everlasting and that exaltation does not necessarily mean becoming a divine being.

Can anyone familiar with Mormonism give greater understanding on these schools of thought and how they coexist the LDS Church? Does the Church itself hold an official position?

I’m hoping this doesn’t end up becoming a Christianity Vs Mormonism thread, there have been plenty of those already.

Mormon here, going to straighten out some things. Note: I’m talking about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not some spin-off church that has nothing to do with the with the LDS church.

It IS official LDS beliefs that the Father is without beginning to end. This is official scripture, non-negotiable. It is also official LDS beliefs that a person may become like God (a really good essay on the subject here: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng).

The following beliefs are NOT official LDS scripture, though there is speculation in regards to them: anything related to the Father’s past. Some Mormons believe it, some don’t, some are agnostic. Again, all speculation, and this is not topic really discussed among LDS folks (0.002% of lessons in the last 30 years remotely talk about it) and we’re content to wait until God chooses to reveal anything more about it.

Addressing your specific question here:
“Can anyone familiar with Mormonism give greater understanding on these schools of thought and how they coexist the LDS Church?”
They can harmonize quite nicely actually (it’s a different view of cosmology than Catholics), but again this is speculation territory.

 

[lax16]

Mormon here, going to straighten out some things. Note: I’m talking about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not some spin-off church that has nothing to do with the with the LDS church.

It IS official LDS beliefs that the Father is without beginning to end. This is official scripture, non-negotiable. It is also official LDS beliefs that a person may become like God (a really good essay on the subject here: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng).

The following beliefs are NOT official LDS scripture, though there is speculation in regards to them: anything related to the Father’s past. Some Mormons believe it, some don’t, some are agnostic. Again, all speculation, and this is not topic really discussed among LDS folks (0.002% of lessons in the last 30 years remotely talk about it) and we’re content to wait until God chooses to reveal anything more about it.

Addressing your specific question here:
“Can anyone familiar with Mormonism give greater understanding on these schools of thought and how they coexist the LDS Church?”
They can harmonize quite nicely actually (it’s a different view of cosmology than Catholics), but again this is speculation territory.

I thought Mormons believe God had a beginning?

 

[jane_doe]

I thought Mormons believe God had a beginning?

Nope. Here’s some quotes for LDS scriptures (which include the Bible)

" I, God, am endless," lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.4%2C10?lang=eng#3

" Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst aformed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/90.2?lang=eng#1

"the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. " lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/13.9?lang=eng#8

“we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God” lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.17?lang=eng#16

 

[FabiusMaximus]

truthseeker32
Notice that this list leaves a lot of flexibility regarding how one is to believe when it comes to God, prophetic authority, and the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t say that a Mormon must believe that God the Father has a human body. It doesn’t say one must accept the Book of Mormon as actual history.

That said, there are many common beliefs among Mormons that have been reinforced by LDS leadership and the way in which Mormonism presents their faith to the world through art, literature, and other media. Thus it is sort of disingenuous when a Mormon says “well, technically I don’t have to believe that” when it has been the view promoted by the LDS church for over 100 years.

I find it interesting how the question about accepting the Book of Mormon isn’t even mentioned on the list to go to participate in the most sacred of Mormon rituals. I guess for Temple work it’s more about practice rather than belief?

Itwin
Are we talking about just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Or are we including other Latter Day Saint denominations that trace their roots back to Joseph Smith as well?

I’ll modify my original post, but I did mean specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not any of the other organizations that claim succession to Joseph Smith.

Janedoe
It IS official LDS beliefs that the Father is without beginning to end. This is official scripture, non-negotiable. It is also official LDS beliefs that a person may become like God (a really good essay on the subject here: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng).

The following beliefs are NOT official LDS scripture, though there is speculation in regards to them: anything related to the Father’s past. Some Mormons believe it, some don’t, some are agnostic. Again, all speculation, and this is not topic really discussed among LDS folks (0.002% of lessons in the last 30 years remotely talk about it) and we’re content to wait until God chooses to reveal anything more about it.

Addressing your specific question here:
“Can anyone familiar with Mormonism give greater understanding on these schools of thought and how they coexist the LDS Church?”
They can harmonize quite nicely actually (it’s a different view of cosmology than Catholics), but again this is speculation territory.

So if this comes out to be a “gotcha” question, I apologize in advance because that is not my intent. I do not want to have a debate on LDS theology. But if the LDS Church officially teaches that God the Father is an eternal being, how is this reconciled with Joseph Smith’s King Fawlett Discourse where he seems to stated that he is not eternal, but rather an exalted man. Why does this theory seem to be so widely diffused among LDS faithful? And if these divisions do exist, isn’t this problematic in terms of what you believe and your eternal salvation? Or is it really more about the Temple work and the Church’s saving ordinances?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I guess I can’t edit my initial post but I do want to make clear that I am indeed talking about the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and not any of the other churches tied to the Book of Mormon and/or that have broken off from the LDS Church.

 

[lax16]

Nope. Here’s some quotes for LDS scriptures (which include the Bible)

" I, God, am endless," lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.4%2C10?lang=eng#3

" Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst aformed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/90.2?lang=eng#1

"the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. " lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/13.9?lang=eng#8

“we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God” lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.17?lang=eng#16

Thank you for the links. I read each one but I am trying to reconcile this with what I was told about God by Mormons.

Wasn’t God once a man in a pre-mortal existence?

 

[jane_doe]

So if this comes out to be a “gotcha” question, I apologize in advance because that is not my intent. I do not want to have a debate on LDS theology.

I appreciate that It’s good to ask question about another faith, rather than wallowing in ignorance/assumptions, so ask away.

(Note: I’m trying to keep my responses here pithy, but you hit on a bunch of big topics so let me know if you want further elaboration on anything).

But if the LDS Church officially teaches that God the Father is an eternal being, how is this reconciled with Joseph Smith’s King Fawlett Discourse where he seems to stated that he is not eternal, but rather an exalted man.

A) The King Follet Discourse is NOT official scripture, neither is the Lorenzo Snow Couplet. There is a whole process in which something is declared to be official scripture, and neither of these documents have gone through that (despite other additions to scripture being made since then).

B) Man’s existence is also eternal. That is scripture (lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28).

C) The question of “has the Father has always existed?” is a different question than “has the Father always existed as God?”. The first answer is clearly yes, the second one can speculate (LDS readily admit that there are many things about God we do not know/understand at this time).

Why does this theory seem to be so widely diffused among LDS faithful?

Sorry, I’m a little uncertain what exactly you’re asking here… could you restate it?

And if these divisions do exist, isn’t this problematic in terms of what you believe and your eternal salvation? Or is it really more about the Temple work and the Church’s saving ordinances?

Why would it be a problem? (This is a honest question)
Being a disciple of Christ is not about being able to ace some theology exam, but rather it is about being. Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Have you given your life to Christ with a sincere and broken heart? Have you repented of your sins? Do you strive to keep His commandments? Some of Christ’s most devoted follows are children, whose faith is 100% genuine, though they may flunk every theology quiz.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why does this theory seem to be so widely diffused among LDS faithful?

Because it is what the Mormon church teaches. An example is here:

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-3-god-the-eternal-father?lang=eng

But also, there is a difference between what the Mormon Church teaches and what individual Mormons believe.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I thought Mormons believe God had a beginning?

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-3-god-the-eternal-father?lang=eng

In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith declared that the first principle of the gospel consists of knowing the character of God. Joseph taught that God “was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself”

Have to remember that definition of words are changed in Mormon theology. Infinite and eternal mean something different as does everlasting. LDS view time in dispensations of human activity on this world, and in a wider sense as contained within the time in which their God has existed as God. Get outside of this context of time and you get into the King Follett Discourse, which is really the only teaching Mormons use for before their God was God. They don’t see the particulars of this time before their God was God as relevant to their purpose of becoming gods themselves.

The words eternal, infinite and everlasting, in Mormon theology are themselves contained within these slices of time. Their God has always been their God. This does not preclude for them that their God was not always God nor does it exclude the possibility of other Gods who are equal or greater, but irrelevant to those whose God is their God.

 

[lax16]

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-3-god-the-eternal-father?lang=eng

Have to remember that definition of words are changed in Mormon theology. Infinite and eternal mean something different as does everlasting. LDS view time in dispensations of human activity on this world, and in a wider sense as contained within the time in which their God has existed as God. Get outside of this context of time and you get into the King Follett Discourse, which is really the only teaching Mormons use for before their God was God. They don’t see the particulars of this time before their God was God as relevant to their purpose of becoming gods themselves.

The words eternal, infinite and everlasting, in Mormon theology are themselves contained within these slices of time. Their God has always been their God. This does not preclude for them that their God was not always God nor does it exclude the possibility of other Gods who are equal or greater, but irrelevant to those whose God is their God.

I read through the link provided and I still don’t understand - if God was a man like us, then he had to have a beginning. And parents. How was he always God if he progressed from a man?

 

[jane_doe]

I read through the link provided and I still don’t understand - if God was a man like us, then he had to have a beginning.

No, man’s existence is also eternal, see the scripture I quoted in post #10 part B. ( Sorry it’s hard for me to copy/paste on mobile).

 

[Horton]

A) The King Follet Discourse is NOT official scripture, neither is the Lorenzo Snow Couplet. There is a whole process in which something is declared to be official scripture, and neither of these documents have gone through that (despite other additions to scripture being made since then).

Yet here is a lesson straight from LDS teaching manuals

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-3-god-the-eternal-father?lang=eng

*The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and th**King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith declared **e **famous King Follett discourse **given shortly before Joseph’s martyrdom in 1844 (see Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 343–62) are significant doctrinal teachings on the nature of God. From the beginning of his ministry until its end, the Prophet shared his increasing understanding of his Heavenly Father. The First Vision taught us that—

1. God and Jesus Christ have glorified bodies.
2. The Father and the Son are two separate beings.
3. The Father presides and works through the Son.

In the that the first principle of the gospel consists of knowing the character of God. Joseph taught that God “was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself”*

Doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I read through the link provided and I still don’t understand - if God was a man like us, then he had to have a beginning. And parents. How was he always God if he progressed from a man?

Mormon belief is that matter is eternal, has always existed, and everything is formed from this existing matter. So no one and nothing has a beginning. At some point their God became a God, but still has no beginning. Just changing, or as they teach it “progressing”, in states of existence. From intelligence (matter), to spirit, to corporality, to a god.

Their God is and has always been their God. They have no belief in a singular, One God, who is God. Period. They accept the possibility of other Gods, who are the God for other universes or worlds.

God is more of a title, in Mormon teaching. Many exalted beings can have the title, but only one of these exalted men with the title God, is their God. And had always been, their God. This is the God who formed their existing matter of intelligence into spirit and who placed their existing spirit into a body, and who will exalt them into gods Even at this point where they are gods, their God will still be their God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yet here is a lesson straight from LDS teaching manuals

lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-3-god-the-eternal-father?lang=eng

*The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and th**King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith declared ***e **famous King Follett discourse **given shortly before Joseph’s martyrdom in 1844 (see Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 343–62) are significant doctrinal teachings on the nature of God. From the beginning of his ministry until its end, the Prophet shared his increasing understanding of his Heavenly Father. The First Vision taught us that—

1. God and Jesus Christ have glorified bodies.
2. The Father and the Son are two separate beings.
3. The Father presides and works through the Son.

In the that the first principle of the gospel consists of knowing the character of God. Joseph taught that God “was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself”

Doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Yeah, it’s the whole, “not official doctrine”, but officially taught since 1842 thing. Pretty much taught without pause since Joseph Smith, but when conversing with non-Mormons, it’s not official. Wink. Wink.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

**

JaneDoe

A) The King Follet Discourse is NOT official scripture, neither is the Lorenzo Snow Couplet. There is a whole process in which something is declared to be official scripture, and neither of these documents have gone through that (despite other additions to scripture being made since then).
**

Does the King Follet discourse then not constitute a revelation of Joseph Smith, then? Because if it were a revelation, wouldn’t that make it automatically canonical since it was divinely given?

C) The question of “has the Father has always existed?” is a different question than “has the Father always existed as God?”. The first answer is clearly yes, the second one can speculate (LDS readily admit that there are many things about God we do not know/understand at this time).

Why would it be a problem? (This is a honest question)
Being a disciple of Christ is not about being able to ace some theology exam, but rather it is about being. Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Have you given your life to Christ with a sincere and broken heart? Have you repented of your sins? Do you strive to keep His commandments? Some of Christ’s most devoted follows are children, whose faith is 100% genuine, though they may flunk every theology quiz.

I guess the reason I mention it is because from a mainstream Christian perspective, what you believe is as important as your actions in this life. If I am a Catholic and I partake in the sacraments from baptism to confession to Holy Communion, but I believe that Jesus was created rather than an eternal person of the Holy Trinity, then this is very problematic for my eternal salvation, because in a certain sense I am being idolatrous. Similarly, if I believed that God the Father was an exalted man instead of eternally God, then this also puts my salvation at risk, because we’re changing God’s fundamental nature.

The impression that I am getting is that in the LDS Church, the importance isn’t necessarily what you believe, but what you practice. I agree that genuine faith is extremely important, but so is correct theology (from my perspective). Would I say that someone will be condemned merely on the basis of an incorrect belief? I’m not so presumptuous to speak on God’s behalf, but I do know he gave us a set of beliefs to adhere to for a reason. And to me, the question of whether God the Father was always God or is an exalted man is an extremely important one. Could I theoretically be a Trinitarian in belief and according to the Mormon perspective, attain the Celestial Kingdom as long as I adhere to the Word of Wisdom, do missionary work, and perform all the works associated with the LDS Church?

RebeccaJ
Because it is what the Mormon church teaches. An example is here:

lds.org/manual/doctrines…ather?lang=eng

But also, there is a difference between what the Mormon Church teaches and what individual Mormons believe.

As a former Mormon, did the Church not place a particular emphasis on correct belief as part of how to be saved?

 

[Horton]

Yeah, it’s the whole, “not official doctrine”, but officially taught since 1842 thing. Pretty much taught without pause since Joseph Smith, but when conversing with non-Mormons, it’s not official. Wink. Wink.

This is why I love being Catholic. It makes sense, it’s logical, and it’s reasonable. I was raised in a mainline protestant faith tradition but there was always something missing. Kind of like going from A to C without hitting on B. Once I learned about Catholicism I found the B.

In my opinion the LDS go from A to G, B to Q, D to T, and every other possible combo. It’s just illogical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

**

As a former Mormon, did the Church not place a particular emphasis on correct belief as part of how to be saved?**

Believing the teachings in the King Follett discourse are not required for salvation. It’s peripheral, and secondary even to correct practice. Mormonism has an emphasis on orthodoxy but an even higher emphasis on orthopraxy. Individual Mormons can believe a wide range of things, that conflict from one individual to the other, but in outward, public, practice and expression, should always appear in line with the current leaders.