Theological Divisions within Mormonism

[RebeccaJ]

I should add that Mormonism has a gnostic vein, where esoteric and special knowledge is considered godlike, a mark of having truth that others lack, a indicator that one is favored by God. Joseph Smith possessing these kind of teachings is of high importance. Learning them and accepting them as God’s truth, is an indicator that one is progressing in godlike knowledge. So while not necessarily important to salvation, it is important in terms of a view that only the special of God have been given unknown, heretofore, special knowledge.

 

[lax16]

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).

Chapter 3: God the Eternal Father
Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual, (2011), 7–8

Introduction
■Write the text of John 17:3 on the chalkboard, and discuss it with your students. Emphasize that eternal life consists in knowing God and his Son, Jesus Christ. This knowledge involves more than being able to speak intellectually about various aspects of God’s divine nature; it also involves developing a relationship with him. How does knowing someone affect the quality of our relationship with him? How does knowing God intensify our relationship with him? Explain that this chapter teaches truth about the nature of God, which will help us to achieve one of the essentials of eternal life.
■**What we know about God is limited to what he has chosen to tell us through his prophets. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and the 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 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” (Teachings, p. 346; or Supporting Statements B on pp. 7–8 of the student manual). The twenty-four-year ministry of Joseph Smith was characterized by continual revelation about the nature of God.

 

[jane_doe]

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?

Just because Joseph Smith said something, does not mean it’s automatically revelation: after all, he’s still a man. Rather, a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. In practice this is similar to the Catholic Papal “from the chair” doctrine (pardon my lack of Latin). If something it to be declared scripture, the prophet himself us say so, have it supported by the Twelve Apostles, and then it will be brought before the general church by for sustaining.

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…
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?

Remember salvation is not a theology examination. Rather, people do the best with whatever Truth they have: all the Good you do even in ignorance is still Good and God smiles upon it. It’s about BEing a disciple of Christ.

As to knowledge: we will all have the opportunity to learn more about God. What matters is what you do when you have the opportunity of more Truth in front of you. Do you:

1. Accept the Truth? God rejoices with you.
2. Reject the Truth? Now, God patiently keeps knocking and knocking, waiting for you. If come judgement day, and you still make an informed rejection of God’s Truth, then God will judge you with the upmost mercy & justice.

Remember: we all have more to learn about God and His mysteries.

And to me, the question of whether God the Father was always God or is an exalted man is an extremely important one.

I understand that this is an area of huge fascination for non-LDS, but to LDS folks this whole discussion is… honestly completely inconsequential to our Love or Devotion to the Father.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This is why I love being Catholic. It makes sense, it’s logical, and it’s reasonable.
.

I work a lot in interfaith contexts and quite honestly I would say that for anyone who is not Christian and has not been exposed to Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, they would say just the opposite. God becoming human? Virgin birth? Ascension? Apparitions? It really isn’t logical at all. It is quite confusing. Judaism is logical. Islam is logical. Not so much Christianity. Just try to read systematic theology.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

J
I understand that this is an area of huge fascination for non-LDS, but to LDS folks this whole discussion is… honestly completely inconsequential to our Love or Devotion to the Father.

Jane Doe, thank you for your patience with people here. I have a question that is rather different, but referring back to the OP’s original question. Can you speak to your own experience about Mormons addressing cultural issues? I read Jana Riess quite a bit, as well as Joanna Brooks, and both are becoming more vocal on gender, sexuality concerns. And from what I understand, the voices behind these issues within the LDS church are not asked to be silent as much as in the past. Is there room for more discussion? Changes in priesthood or in gender roles?

 

[jane_doe]

Jane Doe, thank you for your patience with people here.

You’re welcome. And thank you for your continual thoughtful and respectful posts: I really enjoy reading them.

I have a question that is rather different, but referring back to the OP’s original question. Can you speak to your own experience about Mormons addressing cultural issues? I read Jana Riess quite a bit, as well as Joanna Brooks, and both are becoming more vocal on gender, sexuality concerns. And from what I understand, the voices behind these issues within the LDS church are not asked to be silent as much as in the past. Is there room for more discussion? Changes in priesthood or in gender roles?

I love Joanna Brooks’ writing! Jana Riess is a more mixed hit-or-miss for me.

You’re touching on 3 different categories of things here: culture, policy, and doctrine. I’ll talk in general first, then each individually, and then specific case studies in my next post.

In general: yes, there is a significant variety in individual Mormon beliefs, though they all have common core. This is not seen as a bad thing at all. Something fairly unique about Mormonism though, is that which congregation you attend is assigned according to geographical borders, which prevents stratifying congregation according to different social/theological/economic or other lines.

Culture: yes, the culture of the church is rapidly diversifying in recent years, as members join from diversified backgrounds. Additionally, the internet has allowed small minorities to combine voices to be louder than before (this also applies to the world at large). Thirdly, LDS folks are definitely starting to embrace the diversity more, and feel less obligated fit the Utah “mold” (this shift is facilitated grassroots style and from church leaders themselves). Example of culture things would be dress styles, lingo, foods, backgrounds, etc.

Policy: Policy are those logistical-how-to-run-the-church protocols which are needed, but not divine revelation at all. Examples would be meeting schedules, organization structure, paperwork, etc. Majority of these are decided top down, but can change (they’re just standardized protocols).

Doctrine: These things are dictated by God. An example: scripture. More Truth and scripture can be revealed to us, but it is not for men to decide what or when.

Case study of gender roles and priesthood: Some things on this are changing/have already changed, versus some would require a dictate from God. Some sub-examples:

(to be continued)

 

[jane_doe]

Jane Doe, thank you for your patience with people here. I have a question that is rather different, but referring back to the OP’s original question. Can you speak to your own experience about Mormons addressing cultural issues? I read Jana Riess quite a bit, as well as Joanna Brooks, and both are becoming more vocal on gender, sexuality concerns. And from what I understand, the voices behind these issues within the LDS church are not asked to be silent as much as in the past. Is there room for more discussion? Changes in priesthood or in gender roles?

(continued).

• “Mormon women of the world unite and wear pants to church today!” (yes, this really is a thing, and yes it is totally stupid). This is 100% a Utah cultural-mold thing, and the further you get away from UT the less anyone remotely cares whether you wear pants to church (even in UT they don’t really care).
• Dealing with male-chovenistic-pigs (let’s face it, they exist in Mormonism like every other faith). This is NOT part of Mormon doctrine- doctrine actually greatly decries this this, but regrettably it’s one of thus human-born-culture-diseases we must face, and I do think we are making great strides in that regard.
• Missionaries (this is a successful case study) Until about ~4 years ago, it was policy that young men could go on missions at age 19 and this was HIGHLY encouraged. Women could go at 21, and there was somewhat of a stigmatism of “oh you’re going on a mission, you must not be attractive enough to have gotten married yet” (this view was only held by a small minority of people, but it was highly wrong and annoying). About 4 years ago the policy changed so men could go at 18 and women at 19. This led to an explosion of female missionaries (19 is much more convenient than 21), they are now encouraged to go, and highly respected (cultural changes).
• Non-Priesthood leadership in the church: women do give sermons from the pulpit, lead organizations, teach the entire congregation, etc. They are respected, not just as leaders but as women. Culturally, it is common knowledge that if you want something do, you give it to the women leaders (that’s like stating the grass is green). Now, there are some non-priesthood leadership positions which are traditionally only held by men, and some of those are/might change either via culture or policy.
• Women & priesthood: women do not hold the priesthood positions in the LDS church. For this to change, it would require nothing short of a divine scriptural revelation.

 

[andrewstx]

So then is women’s role in LDS still limited to Relief Society and unlikely to change?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Jane Doe, THANK you for the extremely fine summaries. After reading Joanna Brooks, I was familiar with some, but having you lay things out this was very helpful. I think that in the LDS church, as well as other churches, there are leaps of change that happen. Obviously we are in one now. The 60’s and 70’s were the last period where things seemed to be upside down and inside out. With changes, of course, there always comes push back. We are very much in a push back period now.

It will be interesting to see how the next decade or two unfolds.

 

[jane_doe]

Jane Doe, THANK you for the extremely fine summaries. After reading Joanna Brooks, I was familiar with some, but having you lay things out this was very helpful. I think that in the LDS church, as well as other churches, there are leaps of change that happen. Obviously we are in one now. The 60’s and 70’s were the last period where things seemed to be upside down and inside out. With changes, of course, there always comes push back. We are very much in a push back period now.

It will be interesting to see how the next decade or two unfolds.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Just because Joseph Smith said something, does not mean it’s automatically revelation: after all, he’s still a man. Rather, a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. In practice this is similar to the Catholic Papal “from the chair” doctrine (pardon my lack of Latin). If something it to be declared scripture, the prophet himself us say so, have it supported by the Twelve Apostles, and then it will be brought before the general church by for sustaining.

So is what you’re saying is that what Joseph Smith pronounced in the King Follett discourse was not a divine revelation from God?

Remember salvation is not a theology examination. Rather, people do the best with whatever Truth they have: all the Good you do even in ignorance is still Good and God smiles upon it. It’s about BEing a disciple of Christ.

As to knowledge: we will all have the opportunity to learn more about God. What matters is what you do when you have the opportunity of more Truth in front of you. Do you:

1. Accept the Truth? God rejoices with you.

1. Reject the Truth? Now, God patiently keeps knocking and knocking, waiting for you. If come judgement day, and you still make an informed rejection of God’s Truth, then God will judge you with the upmost mercy & justice.

But is there a balance in Mormonism of how much of the theology you should accept to be saved? Can a practicing Mormon, for instance, believe in the Christian conception of the Trinity and receive salvation so long as his practice in terms of Temple work, tithing, etc is up to LDS requirements?

I understand that this is an area of huge fascination for non-LDS, but to LDS folks this whole discussion is… honestly completely inconsequential to our Love or Devotion to the Father.

To me personally it is a huge fascination because I tend to think that the theology is an important component. I would doubt Catholicism’s claims to be the true Church of Christ on Earth if it infallibly approved a declaration that is manifestly heretical, such as that God the Father was once a man (and I’m not saying that to pick on Mormonism per se, but because it is a clear make-or-break issue within mainstream Christianity).

 

[jane_doe]

So then is women’s role in LDS still limited to Relief Society and unlikely to change?

What are you meaning by “limited” here?

Note: Relief Society does a TON.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I should add that Mormonism has a gnostic vein, where esoteric and special knowledge is considered godlike, a mark of having truth that others lack, a indicator that one is favored by God. Joseph Smith possessing these kind of teachings is of high importance. Learning them and accepting them as God’s truth, is an indicator that one is progressing in godlike knowledge. So while not necessarily important to salvation, it is important in terms of a view that only the special of God have been given unknown, heretofore, special knowledge.

So is there a line that can be drawn with regards to belief and practice? Can a Mormon accept the Trinity and theoretically attain the Celestial Kingdom according to LDS theology, assuming he or she receives all the saving ordinances and Temple rites?

 

[truthseeker32]

One of Mormonism’s greatest strengths is also one of its greatest weaknesses. It makes itself a moving target by making sure it’s theological ideas and “prophecies” remain fluid. Polygamy? Restricting the priesthood based on race? Believing God was once a man? They can say these were never actual doctrines, or they can appeal to “continuing revelation.”

 

[jane_doe]

So is what you’re saying is that what Joseph Smith pronounced in the King Follett discourse was not a divine revelation from God?

It was not officially declared to be so. (This doesn’t mean it is or is not true).

But is there a balance in Mormonism of how much of the theology you should accept to be saved? Can a practicing Mormon, for instance, believe in the Christian conception of the Trinity and receive salvation so long as his practice in terms of Temple work, tithing, etc is up to LDS requirements?

Hard and fast “rules” for this type of this? Don’t directly exist.

Soft guidelines: a person learns line upon line, step by step. Before a person is even eligible for baptism, they would have been taught the LDS conception of the Godhead (the opportunity for learning). Still, they can be baptized while holding on to Nicene-co-substanation ideas.

By the time a person comes to be eligible for temple rites though… you really should have discarded such a fundamentally flawed idea (no offense- to anyone here, this is the LDS perspective). It would be great foolishness to commit to temple promises while having such a fundamental misunderstanding/disagreement. Instead, a person should first focus on a deep study and prayer time with that subject.

As to serving the needy, loving fellow men, serving the church, etc-- all those things are Good and of course you may do them and be counted for Good.

By the time it comes Judgement Day, and if you’re still holding on to this huge flawed idea, after living in the church and hearing it taught many times… this is going to be problematic.

 

[lax16]

It was not officially declared to be so. (This doesn’t mean it is or is not true).

Why do you keep insisting it is not doctrine? If Joseph taught it as the first gospel principle, and it is in your teaching manuals, why are you saying it isn’t a divine revelation from God to Joseph Smith?

■What we know about God is limited to what he has chosen to tell us through his prophets. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and the 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 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” (Teachings, p. 346; or Supporting Statements B on pp. 7–8 of the student manual). The twenty-four-year ministry of Joseph Smith was characterized by continual revelation about the nature of God.

 

[lax16]

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.

So the Mormon God may be different than the God for the rest of us?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

So the Mormon God may be different than the God for the rest of us?

You know, I don’t think it’s that black and white. Many traditional Christians may look at the Mormon understanding of ‘Father God’ and say, “That can’t be who we worship.” And many may say, ‘But God the Father is divine and we cannot possibly know everything there is to know about Him.’

We can say for certain that the Mormon God is NOT Zeus or Brahma or any other non-Abrahamic God. I have no problem with praying with my LDS friends or colleagues, in the same way I would pray in a Jewish or Muslim setting. I am quite content that we are praying to the God I know and who knows me.

 

[lax16]

You know, I don’t think it’s that black and white. Many traditional Christians may look at the Mormon understanding of ‘Father God’ and say, “That can’t be who we worship.” And many may say, ‘But God the Father is divine and we cannot possibly know everything there is to know about Him.’

I was answering Rebecca’s post regarding the LDS definition of God and I was asking her for clarification. I don’t know yet if I think it is black and white!

We can say for certain that the Mormon God is NOT Zeus or Brahma or any other non-Abrahamic God. I have no problem with praying with my LDS friends or colleagues, in the same way I would pray in a Jewish or Muslim setting. I am quite content that we are praying to the God I know and who knows me.

I must disagree with you on this because the Mormon definition of God is not the God of the Jewish people. According to Judaism, God has no body and no one has seen his face. I will only pray to the God who has revealed himself to the Jewish people.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So the Mormon God may be different than the God for the rest of us?

Depends on your perspective. From the Mormon POV their God is the God of this world, including for you and I.

From my personal perspective, they worship a false God, that I rejected decades ago.