Theological Divisions within Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is probably for the best. Everytime I convince a Mormon to expound on their criticisms of the Holy Trinity the only thing they demonstrate is that they don’t actually know what the Church believes.
Indeed (I was waiting for this as well). Quite often, the LDS will dispute the claim of consubstantiality, however will not demonstrate an understanding of what that word is actually referring to. Many will also criticize the heresy of modalism, and not what the Trinity doctrine actually states.
 
Being agnostic about it (admitting I don’t know and being content with that) is different than actively disbelieving it.
🤷 I know this is a popular notion, usually associated to belief in God. I see it as, either you believe or you don’t. You don’t believe Smith was teaching a correct principle. Otherwise you’d say you believe his teaching.
 
🤷 I know this is a popular notion, usually associated to belief in God. I see it as, either you believe or you don’t. You don’t believe Smith was teaching a correct principle. Otherwise you’d say you believe his teaching.
I get that sediment, though I don’t share it (I’m less of a black & white thinker)
 
I get that sediment, though I don’t share it (I’m less of a black & white thinker)
Either Smith was teaching divine principles or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, that calls into question everything he claimed was of divine origin. But I can see how a Mormon must pick and choose, or just plain ignore as though it didn’t happen, in order to remain Mormon.
 
Either Smith was teaching divine principles or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, that calls into question everything he claimed was of divine origin. But I can see how a Mormon must pick and choose, or just plain ignore as though it didn’t happen, in order to remain Mormon.
This is getting into a debate, which is contrary to the OP’s wishes, so I’m just going to agree to disagree.
 
This is getting into a debate, which is contrary to the OP’s wishes, so I’m just going to agree to disagree.
Discussion is not debate. I can see how not discussing Smith’s not-divine-teachings that are taught as authoritative to this day, yet not believed, would be a less than desirable discussion.
 
(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).
I live pretty far from Utah and there were a fair number of ladies in RS who got all huffy and puffy about it. They were also pretty public about their opinion that women who wear pants to church are disobedient, lack in spirituality and don’t really love God. I wore one of my pantsuits that day, and I was more nicely dressed than most of the ladies there in their denim skirts and flip flops. While I agree that the animus towards women’s pantsuits originates in Utah, I disagree that no one cares. Maybe some people don’t care, but many do. I don’t think that the wear pants to church movement is stupid. The fact that there is so much social animus and judgement on women wearing nice slacks to an LDS church is what is stupid.
  • 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.
The problem is that polygamy is still a doctrine of the LDS church (see Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants) it permeates everything within the LDS church, including relations between the sexes. Granted, most LDS men these days are not true male-chauvinist pigs, but there will continue to be problems within LDS culture because polygamy is on the books as doctrine even though it is not practiced in a meaningful way today.
  • 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).
The stigma goes way beyond physical appearance. There was (maybe still is) a stigma against women who chose not to go on a mission but were also not married. We were considered to be less spiritual and more worldly, and therefore not good marriage material even if we were only 23+ years old.

On a personal note, LDS men for some reason didn’t think I was pretty enough to date or marry, although I had no shortage of men who were not LDS who certainly thought I was. I even had LDS men who were rude enough to ask me to my face what was wrong with me because I was neither married nor a returned missionary. During my 20’s, my non-LDS male co-workers (basically all of them) were completely baffled that I never had a boyfriend or even a date given how socially active I was in the LDS singles scene. They ended up thinking there was something wrong with them.
 
This is getting into a debate, which is contrary to the OP’s wishes, so I’m just going to agree to disagree.
Discussion is not debate. I can see how not discussing Smith’s not-divine-teachings that are taught as authoritative to this day, yet not believed, would be a less than desirable discussion.
Which really means I can’t back up my claims so therefore I am just going to ignore any requests for clarification on my comments.
 
Which really means I can’t back up my claims so therefore I am just going to ignore any requests for clarification on my comments.
🤷 dunno the motivations. Agnostic approach is kind of silly, IMO, for anything. Not actively believing is, well, not believing. It is an illogical position. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad when there isn’t belief in what Joseph Smith taught.
 
Can you point out these " HIGHLY problematic and results in many other serious fallacies"?

“Despite their hugely flawed understanding of God, they still pray, live, work, honor, and rejoice Christ as His disciples. So no, I don’t believe you guys worship anything less than the true God”

So all Christians are flawed in their belief in God? So more than 2000 years of DOCUMETED Christian history is flawed? So it’s better to believe in some con man who looked in a hat with a couple of rocks and “found” the true God? Seriously? Joseph Smith’s story has been proven false and yet we Christians are in the wrong? :bigyikes:

One last point. It’s consubstantiation, not co-substantiation.
She did say that it’s from an LDS perspective, so yes, it’s flawed for her. Wouldn’t we consider their understanding of the Godhead defective as well? It cuts both ways.
 
🤷 dunno the motivations. Agnostic approach is kind of silly, IMO, for anything. Not actively believing is, well, not believing. It is an illogical position. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad when there isn’t belief in what Joseph Smith taught.
Fortunately, the more that time goes by, and with the internet, less and less of what Joseph Smith really taught is believed.

I have noticed this a great deal in the past 2 decades. I think when Hinckley was interviewed by Larry King and pretty much disavowed the Lorenzo Snow “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become” comment.

The following is found on LDS.org and comes from the official magazine Ensign of 1982. Jane’s lack of belief in this is atypical, at least for when I was LDS. But then, Mormon theology does change over time.

lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&_r=1

"Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?

Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.

Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.

**According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …

“As man now is, God once was:”

“As God now is, man may be.”**…

President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he 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 did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)

Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life.
About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. …

**Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. **In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …

“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today."

Again, this comes from the LDS Church’s own official magazine, The Ensign. It makes it clear that this (or at least was) doctrinal, and was taught as doctrine. Read the full article
 
She did say that it’s from an LDS perspective, so yes, it’s flawed for her. Wouldn’t we consider their understanding of the Godhead defective as well? It cuts both ways.
We do and when asked to back up claims we make, we are able and willing to do so.
 
Again, this comes from the LDS Church’s own official magazine, The Ensign. It makes it clear that this (or at least was) doctrinal, and was taught as doctrine. Read the full article
It gets even better, Marie.

It’s difficult to disavow the couplet when it is included and discussed in the Relief Society/Priesthood lesson manual for 2013 “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow”. See chapter 5. lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow?lang=eng

From the introduction to chapter 5.

"In the spring of 1840, Lorenzo Snow was in Nauvoo, Illinois, preparing to leave for a mission in England. He visited the home of his friend HenryG. Sherwood, and he asked Brother Sherwood to explain a passage of scripture. “While attentively listening to
his explanation,” President Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me.
...

'As man now is, God once was:
‘As God now is, man may be.’

Feeling that he had received ‘a sacred communication’ that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it.

Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently. In addition to making this truth a theme for many of his sermons, he adopted it as the theme for his life. His son LeRoi said, ‘This revealed truth impressed Lorenzo Snow more than perhaps all else; it sank so deeply into his soul that it became the inspiration of his life and gave him his broad vision of his own great future and the mighty mission and work of the Church.’ It was his ‘constant light and guide’ and ‘a bright, illuminating star before him all the time—in his heart, in his soul, and all through him.’

In this chapter, President Snow teaches the doctrine that we can become like our Heavenly Father."
 
It gets even better, Marie.

It’s difficult to disavow the couplet when it is included and discussed in the Relief Society/Priesthood lesson manual for 2013 “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow”. See chapter 5. lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow?lang=eng

From the introduction to chapter 5.

"In the spring of 1840, Lorenzo Snow was in Nauvoo, Illinois, preparing to leave for a mission in England. He visited the home of his friend HenryG. Sherwood, and he asked Brother Sherwood to explain a passage of scripture. “While attentively listening to
his explanation,” President Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me.
...

'As man now is, God once was:
‘As God now is, man may be.’

Feeling that he had received ‘a sacred communication’ that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it.

Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently. In addition to making this truth a theme for many of his sermons, he adopted it as the theme for his life. His son LeRoi said, ‘This revealed truth impressed Lorenzo Snow more than perhaps all else; it sank so deeply into his soul that it became the inspiration of his life and gave him his broad vision of his own great future and the mighty mission and work of the Church.’ It was his ‘constant light and guide’ and ‘a bright, illuminating star before him all the time—in his heart, in his soul, and all through him.’

In this chapter, President Snow teaches the doctrine that we can become like our Heavenly Father."
Thanks, iepuras.

So it IS still taught as doctrine, even though Hinckley apparently disavowed it to Larry King. (I remember how stunned I was when I saw that part of the interview. Although I had already left Mormonism, that just added to reality that Mormon leadership really are not a’s, p’s, and s’s)
 
What are you meaning by “limited” here?

Note: Relief Society does a TON.
I meant of course that women will never be ordained to the all-male priest hood, like in my own church. It embaresses me some what and I don’t agree with it %100.
 
I meant of course that women will never be ordained to the all-male priest hood, like in my own church. It embaresses me some what and I don’t agree with it %100.
Without a direct revelation from the Lord, the LDS church will never ordain women to the priesthood.

Now, in the mean time women give sermons, lead meetings, organize & carry out events, etc.
 
I meant of course that women will never be ordained to the all-male priest hood, like in my own church. It embaresses me some what and I don’t agree with it %100.
A woman can’t be a priest but the reasoning for it within the Catholic Church and with the LDS church is very different. I’m a woman and very Catholic. I have zero embarrassment about the fact a woman can’t be a priest. However, it is my opinion that women are valued far more in the Catholic Church than they are in the LDS Church.

Think about how women in the Catholic Church are valued regardless of their marital status. If a woman’s vocation is marriage wonderful, if it’s single life, wonderful, if her call is to religious life, wonderful.

In the LDS church a woman’s call is to marry and have children. Even to the point that there is a belief that an unmarried woman in life will be married off as a second wife in the eternal life.
 
However, it is my opinion that women are valued far more in the Catholic Church than they are in the LDS Church.

Think about how women in the Catholic Church are valued regardless of their marital status. If a woman’s vocation is marriage wonderful, if it’s single life, wonderful, if her call is to religious life, wonderful.
Yes, Horton, I agree. The great respect we give to Our Lady, the numerous women saints, and even doctors of the church.

Im in the process of reading Teresa of Avila’s writings. What an amazing woman, so real, so honest, and the heights she achieved in the spiritual realm. Her accomplishments that she achieved in reforming the Carmelite order (and in the 16th century no less).

It’s one of those myths about Catholicism, the repression of women.

Hardly.
 
To me it seems that in Mormonism all women are expected to conform and be exactly the same. But human are reamarkly diverse.

At least in our church women can be Sisters or Nuns. Not all pressured to be Mothers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top