Understanding Mormon Doctrine

[RebeccaJ]

Hello again, RebeccaJ.

I missed this earlier post of yours…

Most of your questions have answers in posts 1 and 2. Further clarification about Adam-God theory was provided in, I believe, post 5. Adam-God never was or is doctrine of the Church. The source of Mormon doctrine isn’t limited to just the scriptures. I brought this out in posts 1 and 2. You can find Church doctrine in the Standard Works, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith. All doctrines taught in the temple, though, are found in the scriptures. Policies and procedures do not necessarily constitute doctrine. Nonetheless, procedures on how to perform temple ordinances are found in officially published material.

Thanks for your questions!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I don’t believe you have addressed whether or not doctrinal correctness is expected by Mormons, and if so, how do you determine what is correct? Also, the Adam-God teaching of BY is denied by many Mormons today, and called speculation or opinion. You still have not addressed that Mormons of the time who followed BY and were bound by his teachings, and so, should believe what he taught. A problem then, either BY was teaching false ideas, or, what he was teaching was correct and is denied today.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hello Finrock:

Do you define a difference between scripture and doctrine?

Are revelations being received by the prophets today? If so, why are they not included in the Doctrine and Covenants?

As indicated in the chapter titled “What Is Scripture?” there are two major types of scripture in the Church today: (1) the canonized scripture, which is written and contained in the standard works of the Church (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) and (2) the spoken or written noncanonized scripture that comes initially as the General Authorities speak or write when “moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Of course, this latter type of scripture, which is initially revealed through the mind of the General Authority, is often subsequently written down and published throughout the Church, either in conference reports, Church magazines, or other publications of the Church.

Both types of scripture are equally binding upon the membership of the Church; therefore, it is not necessary that every new revelation or inspired teaching of the Prophet or of the other General Authorities be published as part of the canonized scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants. (“Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants”, Daniel H. Ludlow, Deseret Book Co, 1978, p.24-25)

Gospel doctrine is synonymous with the truths of salvation. It comprises the tenets, teachings, and true theories found in the scriptures; it includes the principles, precepts, and revealed philosophies of pure religion; prophetic dogmas, maxims, and views are embraced within its folds; the Articles of Faith are part and portion of it, as is every inspired utterance of the Lord’s agents (“Mormon Doctrine”, Bruce R McConkie, Deseret Book Co, 1966, p.204)

There is scripture other than the standard works. Some people get the idea that the only scripture we have in the Church today is that which is contained in the four standard Church works. Now, the Lord in a revelation has spoken of something else [which He] defined [as] scripture. I read from the sixty-eighth section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This was a revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith. [The Lord] said this: “And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—and this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (D&C 68:2-4.) (70-11) (“The Teachings of Harold B. Lee”, Deseret Book Co, 1996, p.148, bold original to the publication)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture. (“Gospel Principles”, lds.org, retrieved July 3, 2009)

I don’t see anything that lets one have a clear understanding of LDS doctrine nor do I see anything that limits it to the “standard works”. Much of it stands in opposition to what Finrock says. And I’d like to second the Heavenly Mother question, where is she in the standard works and if not there how else does she get to be doctrine, or is she???

 

[Finrock]

Good…well…it’s morning time for me, so Good morning zaffiroborant! I hope you are doing well.

I don’t see anything that lets one have a clear understanding of LDS doctrine nor do I see anything that limits it to the “standard works”. Much of it stands in opposition to what Finrock says. And I’d like to second the Heavenly Mother question, where is she in the standard works and if not there how else does she get to be doctrine, or is she???

I know posts 1 and 2 in this thread are long, and I apologize, but I wanted to be thorough. However, if you read post 1 again, carefully, you will note that none of what RebeccaJ quoted is in opposition to what I posted. The thoughts and ideas expressed in each of those quotes in RebeccaJ’s post are condensed in this one paragraph I quoted in post 1. Please consider it again:

“With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith” (newsroom.lds.org, Emphasis added).

Note the emphasized part. I didn’t claim in my post that Mormon doctrine is limited to just the standard works. Mormon doctrine is found in the Standard Works, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Essentially all of the elements found in the various quotes from RebeccaJ’s post. Doctrine and Covenants provides the pattern by which doctrine is established (Section 107, 26, 28). You can see this pattern in action when the Manifestos were made, when the priesthood was opened to all male members, etc.

See post #17 for an answer to Heavenly Mother question.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Hello Finrock:

Do you define a difference between scripture and doctrine?

Well, I guess I normally consider scripture as the canonized word, although technically, anything that is inspired of God is scripture. I would say that doctrine is more of what is taught in scripture. So, I would say that scripture contains doctrine.

You could then say the scriptures that contain the official and binding doctrines of the Church are the standard works (which is scripture), official proclamations and declarations (which are also scripture), and the Articles of Faith (which is scripture too).

Did that answer your question?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

I don’t believe you have addressed whether or not doctrinal correctness is expected by Mormons, and if so, how do you determine what is correct? Also, the Adam-God teaching of BY is denied by many Mormons today, and called speculation or opinion. You still have not addressed that Mormons of the time who followed BY and were bound by his teachings, and so, should believe what he taught. A problem then, either BY was teaching false ideas, or, what he was teaching was correct and is denied today.

Absolutely, correctness is expected by Mormons. Part of the responsibility of a leader in the Church (local or general) is to ensure that correct doctrines are taught. That is why we should only used Church approved curriculum, which although not infallible, still is screened for doctrinal correctness. Also, our leaders regularly attend leadership training where they are taught correct principles as received from the General Authorities.

Just to expand on that a bit: Bishops ensure that the Ward is teaching correct doctrine. Stake Presidents ensure that Bishops are teaching correct doctrine. Area Presidencies ensure that Stake Presidents are teaching correct doctrine, and the Quorum of the Twelve ensure that Area Presidents are teaching correct doctrine. Finally, the standard by which we measure all doctrine is by the canonized scriptures, official proclamations and declarations, and the Articles of Faith. And mixed in with all of this, we try to listen to the Holy Spirit and trust in His guidance.

Mormons during Brigham Youngs time were not bound by the Adam-God theory he proposed. Also, the dichotomy you’ve provided, isn’t valid. It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we simply don’t understand what he means. Or, it is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we aren’t required to accept it because it was never consistently taught and published, it was not added to our canon of scripture, there was no official declaration or proclamation pertaining to it, and it wasn’t added to the Articles of Faith. Therefore, a member is under no obligation to believe the teaching or accept it. And, I can think of a couple of other realistic possibilities, but l’ll let this suffice. In closing, let me quote from BYU professor Stephen Robinson whose sentiments about the Adam-God theory I pretty much share:

“Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch… A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called “Adam-God theory.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand…The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what “it” is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here… For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and…the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.”

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zerinus]

The idea of Heavenly Mother has been confirmed and essentially canonized by at least two official statements. In 1909 the First Presidency, wrote an official statement called, “The Origin of Man” which taught that we have a Heavenly Father and Mother. And, then later, in 1995 the Church released an official proclamation, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, which also confirms the teaching of heavenly parents. These official declarations and proclamations are sources of established doctrine. So, no, you can’t find Heavenly Mother in the Standard Works, but you can find it taught in official proclamations and declarations, which are also good sources of Mormon doctrine.

Thank you Finrock for your informative posts. I like to play the devil’s advocate sometimes, and ask challenging questions of LDS. In the light of your above comments, how do you explain those passages in LDS scripture that teach that our spirits in the preexistence were in fact created by Jesus Christ?

Mosiah 26:

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon zerinus. I hope you are having an awesome day!

Thank you Finrock for your informative posts. I like to play the devil’s advocate sometimes, and ask challenging questions of LDS. In the light of your above comments, how do you explain those passages in LDS scripture that teach that our spirits in the preexistence were in fact created by Jesus Christ?

Mosiah 26:

23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

Ether 3:

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

D&C 93:

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

I understand those scriptures to be speaking of the physical creation of man.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Christian55]

. . . . .Mormons during Brigham Youngs

time were not bound by the Adam-God theory he proposed. Also, the dichotomy you’ve provided, isn’t valid. It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but we simply don’t understand what he means. . . . .

**Finrock:
What are we supposed to believe about the LDS position on Brigham Young and his Adam-God Theory?

Now you are saying, “It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth**, but you simply don’t understand what he means?”

Brigham Young was the second President/Prophet of the Mormon Church. This LDS website states that Prophets serve as the Presidents of the Church:

Church History, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

 

[Christian55]

Follow link to article entitled, Failed Prophecies of Joseph Smith: (Copyright © 1997 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved):

irr.org/mit/js-failed-prophecies.html

The article claims quotes from the seven prophecies from “Latter-day Saint scriptures or the History of the Church (HC), a seven volume history published under the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon.)

 

[Christian55]

**Finrock: I did say I was finished with all this, but I need to address one more issue.

In Post #471, on the Thread entitled,*** What is the book of Mormon all about***, link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=345685&page=2; I quoted the
Mormonism Research Ministry"Adam-God" - Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine? By Bill McKeever. Today, I will only quote what pertains to Joseph Smith:
**

“It may surprise some, but Brigham Young’s Adam-God connection is in harmony with the teachings of Joseph Smith. It was Joseph Smith who declared that Adam was, in fact, the Ancient of Days. Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 116:1; 138:38 **all state that Adam is the Ancient of Days.
**
**Joseph Smith even attempted to get the Bible to concur with this thought when he said, “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam…” **(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 157). Smith was referring to Daniel 7:13 which reads, “I saw the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him near before him.””

For full article follow this link:
mrm.org/adam-god

---

Finrock: In your Post #459 on the Thread entitled, What is the book of Mormon all about, link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=345685&page=2, in reponse to the Adam-God issue, you stated,* “This was never taught by the Church. Isn’t doctrine.”*

So, then when the Mormon Prophet/President teaches, it doesn’t count?**

**In Post #6 on our current Thread, you stated, “We believe “Ancient of Days” is a title, given to Adam:”
**

“The title “Ancient of Days” as used in Daniel in the Old Testament, and in the Doctrine & Covenants, cannot or should not, be confused as teaching the Adam-God theory. This isn’t what the LDS church understands these verses to mean and it isn’t how those scriptures are interpreted by us. We believe “Ancient of Days” is a title, given to Adam

 

[zerinus]

Good afternoon zerinus. I hope you are having an awesome day!

I understand those scriptures to be speaking of the physical creation of man.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Thank you Finrock for your comments and good wishes. I hope that you are doing great too!

Your explanation would be satisfactory if it could be shown to be scripturally viable. But judging by the text of the scriptural references, I think there would be serious doubts concerning that. Take for example the last verse in the last quote: “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him”. The use of the past tense, and the inclusion of “all things,” implies something more comprehensive than just the natural creation.

In the book of Genesis, and especially in the book of Moses, it makes it clear that creation had two stages: first the spiritual, and then the natural; and that the two creations go hand in hand. I don’t think it is possible in the economy of God to speak of only a “one-stage creation,” as attested in the following verses:

D&C 29:

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

So evidently there is no such thing as a “one-stage creation” with the Divine. If Jesus indeed created “all things” including men, like it says, then that necessarily must include the spiritual as well as the temporal creation. So I don’t think that that explanation is borne out by the scriptures. I think you would have to think of a different one!

 

[zerinus]

Christian55, your posts suggests to me you are some kind of a fanatic Mormon hater blinded by prejudice with whom it is not possible to conduct a rational discussion. I don’t feel inclined to reply to your posts or engage you in debate, and I doubt if other LDS do either.

 

[Christian55]

Christian55, your posts suggests to me you are some kind of a fanatic Mormon hater blinded by prejudice with whom it is not possible to conduct a rational discussion. I don’t feel inclined to reply to your posts or engage you in debate, and I doubt if other LDS do either.

This kind of slanderous attack is against Forum Rules. I am not a “fanatic Mormon hater blinded by prejudice with whom it is not possible to conduct a rational discussion.”

I am even quoting directly from LDS websites. If you see any quote that you think is not correct, then please correct it.

If you think something is taken out of context, then please explain it in context.

If you think I have misunderstood something about the Mormon Church, then please address it in a civilized manner.

If you must slander a person, when you are unable to justify your beliefs, perhaps these Forums are not for you.

 

[zerinus]

This kind of slanderous attack is against Forum Rules. I am not a “fanatic Mormon hater blinded by prejudice with whom it is not possible to conduct a rational discussion.”

I am even quoting directly from LDS websites. If you see any quote that you think is not correct, then please correct it.

If you think something is taken out of context, then please explain it in context.

If you think I have misunderstood something about the Mormon Church, then please address it in a civilized manner.

If you must slander a person, when you are unable to justify your beliefs, perhaps these Forums are not for you.

You have run amock quoting from anti-Mormon websites, some of whom are equally anti-Catholic such as CARM, forgetting that this is a Catholic site, and now you are making threats against me. I noticed that you are not Catholic. I guess you are somebody from CARM who is is as much anti-Catholic as anti-Mormon. And I am not afraid of your stupid threats, okay.

 

[mark_a]

You know, I’m usually one of the folks that chime in on threads where I perceive that the Catholic Church is being trashed by Mormons.

I’ll bring up polygamy, comparisons between Joseph Smith and Muhammed, , etc. And I’m wrong to do so.

And I appreciate this thread that explains Mormon doctrine and how it is to be understood from a Mormon perspective.

But. . . .

I’m amused that the theology of Mormonism was based on being “different” somehow, but less than 200 years down the road, you guys are trying so hard to fit in that you get youselves all insulted at being called quasi-Christian by the very folks who Mormons call apostate and tried so hard to distance yourselves from.

Give me a break.

The whole apostacy of the Catholic Church thing just cannot sit well with me, no matter how you try to explain it away. And this to me seems to be the real cornerstone of your faith.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening Christian55. I hope you have had a wonderful day!

Please consider this post a response to all of your latest posts.

What are we supposed to believe about the LDS position on Brigham Young and his Adam-God Theory?

Now you are saying, “It is possible that Brigham Young is teaching the truth, but you simply don’t understand what he means?”

Brigham Young was the second President/Prophet of the Mormon Church. This LDS website states that Prophets serve as the Presidents of the Church:

The 4th President of the Mormon Church, Wilford Woodruff, Served 1887–1898, said that the Lord would never permit him or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead people astray:

This is a very interesting “Biographical Sketch,” of Brigham Young, which also appears on the LDS website:

**Interesting Quotes from Brigham Young are found at this Link: carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/interesting-quotes-brigham-young-second-proph, which cites Journal of Discourses for 16 quotes by Brigham Young. These are titles of 7 of the 16 quotes. This is heresy at its worst:
**

**Follow this link for the Journal of Discourses: journalofdiscourses.org/
This appears to be an official LDS website. LDS Forum Members—please correct me if I am wrong: **

**The Holy Scriptures of the Bible tell us how to know a true prophet:

The Mormon Church seems to have a history clouded by one false prophet after another, spouting teachings that are heresy to the Christian Church.

At this point, repeating the obvious is just a waste of my time.**

I’ve read and understood your posts. Thank you for sharing your opinions about Brigham Young and some of the things he taught.

Happy 4th of July!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Good evening zerinus. Thank you for wishing me well. I have had a good day.

Thank you Finrock for your comments and good wishes. I hope that you are doing great too!

Your explanation would be satisfactory if it could be shown to be scripturally viable. But judging by the text of the scriptural references, I think there would be serious doubts concerning that. Take for example the last verse in the last quote: “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him”. The use of the past tense, and the inclusion of “all things,” implies something more comprehensive than just the natural creation.

In the book of Genesis, and especially in the book of Moses, it makes it clear that creation had two stages: first the spiritual, and then the natural; and that the two creations go hand in hand. I don’t think it is possible in the economy of God to speak of only a “one-stage creation,” as attested in the following verses:

D&C 29:

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

So evidently there is no such thing as a “one-stage creation” with the Divine. If Jesus indeed created “all things” including men, like it says, then that necessarily must include the spiritual as well as the temporal creation. So I don’t think that that explanation is borne out by the scriptures. I think you would have to think of a different one!

I understand where you are coming from and I think you have a point. I don’t want to be dismissive of what you have proffered, because you may very well have a greater understanding of this subject matter than I, however, I’m going to toe-the-line on this one, and go with the established Mormon doctrine that we are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. But, I want to reemphasize that I do see your point and I do think that given your premises, your argument logically follows.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zaffiroborant]

Good evening zerinus. Thank you for wishing me well. I have had a good day.
zerinus;5400583:

Thank you Finrock for your comments and good wishes. I hope that you are doing great too!

Your explanation would be satisfactory if it could be shown to be scripturally viable. But judging by the text of the scriptural references, I think there would be serious doubts concerning that. Take for example the last verse in the last quote: “The worlds were

made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him”. The use of the past tense, and the inclusion of “all things,” implies something more comprehensive than just the natural creation.

In the book of Genesis, and especially in the book of Moses, it makes it clear that creation had two stages: first the spiritual, and then the natural; and that the two creations go hand in hand. I don’t think it is possible in the economy of God to speak of only a “one-stage creation,” as attested in the following verses:

D&C 29:

30 But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit.

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

So evidently there is no such thing as a “one-stage creation” with the Divine. If Jesus indeed created “all things” including men, like it says, then that necessarily must include the spiritual as well as the temporal creation. So I don’t think that that explanation is borne out by the scriptures. I think you would have to think of a different one!

I understand where you are coming from and I think you have a point. I don’t want to be dismissive of what you have proffered, because you may very well have a greater understanding of this subject matter than I, however, I’m going to toe-the-line on this one, and go with the established Mormon doctrine that we are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. But, I want to reemphasize that I do see your point and I do think that given your premises, your argument logically follows.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

So are we literal offspring of God the Father and Heavenly Mother or not? You are both appealing to “canonized scripture” here. Why does this seem so familiar, where have I seen it before?. With all the revelation, God’s mouth piece here on earth and so forth you’d think there would be a definite answer to such a question???

 

[zerinus]

So are we literal offspring of God the Father and Heavenly Mother or not? You are both appealing to “canonized scripture” here. Why does this seem so familiar, where have I seen it before?. With all the revelation, God’s mouth piece here on earth and so forth you’d think there would be a definite answer to such a question???

Does not Catholic theology have ambiguities which cannot be resolved by appealing to scripture or tradition?

 

[Christian55]

Good evening Christian55. I hope you have had a wonderful day!

Please consider this post a response to all of your latest posts.

I’ve read and understood your posts. Thank you for sharing your opinions about Brigham Young and some of the things he taught.

Happy 4th of July!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Finrock, You never respond to the tough issues.

Zerinus slanders and you ignore.

I said in my posts of yesterday, that I was not going to spend any more energy on this.

My contributions on this thread have truly been a waste of time. I thought the pursuit of truth was the issue. I was very wrong.