What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I answered. I think it was the best answer for you, as this way of questioning was a setup, for you to attack our beliefs and to cause offense.

I’ll telll you what I think. Anyone who thinks they can tell me in minute detail what I’ll be doing on a day to day basis in a million years, is lying. That person has made up, or fallen for, fanciful tales of men.

Rebecca,
No. It was a question to try and get you to think about the far future. I wasn’t trying to offend you, unless you don’t want to think about the far future. Perhaps you don’t. Sorry, then.

I quoted the pertinent passages from Revelation. They aren’t “made up” and they aren’t the “fanciful tales of men.” Bye.

 

[ParkerD]

Your opinion is not under discussion here - LDS doctrine is. Here’s what the official LDS web site says:

There is only one meaning of the word begotten implied here, the same for Jesus and for us, the same in heaven as on earth. We all know what it means to “beget” a child. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

It sounds as though you deny that you are “a child of God”. If so, your belief is out of harmony with the historic teaching of the LDS church.

Paul,
Sorry I offended you earlier. We don’t know what “begotten in the spirit means” specifically. We may have an opinion about what it means, but that will be our opinion. You are giving all sorts of opinions that you say are doctrine, but your sources are not the scriptures or the words of the living prophets and apostles, so those opinions are just opinions. You are the one who asked me about what “seeds” meant. You were asking for my opinion, and I gave it to you. Bye.

 

[Jerusha]

Parker, I sincerely request that you do a word-study on “seed” in the Book of Mormon. I won’t do it for you, unless you request. It is a very good question. You are not “orthodox” LDS.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Paul,
Sorry I offended you earlier. We don’t know what “begotten in the spirit means” specifically. We may have an opinion about what it means, but that will be our opinion. You are giving all sorts of opinions that you say are doctrine, but your sources are not the scriptures or the words of the living prophets and apostles, so those opinions are just opinions. You are the one who asked me about what “seeds” meant. You were asking for my opinion, and I gave it to you. Bye.

Parker, one of the things that many posters to this forum find troublesome is that things that were taught as Mormon doctrine a generation or two ago (and some forum members where in those classes and know of what they speak) are now utterly denied as doctrine by other members of this forum that are currently Mormon. There have been a variety of explanations for the changes, including outright denial that it ever was doctrine.

This is very troublesome and cannot be explained away by “continuing revelation” and having a “living prophet”. When fundamental “truths” of a faith subsequently evolve into something that is not only no longer acknowledged as “truth” but is disavowed as having ever been true, it’s a big doctrinal problem that casts doubt on other “truths” currently in vogue.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, one of the things that many posters to this forum find troublesome is that things that were taught as Mormon doctrine a generation or two ago (and some forum members where in those classes and know of what they speak) are now utterly denied as doctrine by other members of this forum that are currently Mormon. There have been a variety of explanations for the changes, including outright denial that it ever was doctrine.

This is very troublesome and cannot be explained away by “continuing revelation” and having a “living prophet”. When fundamental “truths” of a faith subsequently evolve into something that is not only no longer acknowledged as “truth” but is disavowed as having ever been true, it’s a big doctrinal problem that casts doubt on other “truths” currently in vogue.

Melanie,
I assume you read my entire entry. When Mormons try to explain changes in policy, they may do it in ways that are imperfect. They may do it in ways that try to justify the new position in a way that whoever they are addressing can relate to. But the deep-down underlying principle is what I said earlier. A person either understands personal revelation and the idea of following a living prophet who receives revelation that may mean changes in policy, or they don’t. This is a perfect sifting process. You’ll never understand it if you haven’t personally experienced it, as I said before. Your misgivings allow you to go on with as much joy and happiness in your own life as you are willing to receive and to live for, and I think that’s great. As I’ve said before, you have what you want. I have what I want. We want different things.

 

[twopekinguys]

Parker, one of the things that many posters to this forum find troublesome is that things that were taught as Mormon doctrine a generation or two ago (and some forum members where in those classes and know of what they speak) are now utterly denied as doctrine by other members of this forum that are currently Mormon. There have been a variety of explanations for the changes, including outright denial that it ever was doctrine.

This is very troublesome and cannot be explained away by “continuing revelation” and having a “living prophet”. When fundamental “truths” of a faith subsequently evolve into something that is not only no longer acknowledged as “truth” but is disavowed as having ever been true, it’s a big doctrinal problem that casts doubt on other “truths” currently in vogue.

Well said Melanie.

I would only add. The Catholic church history is out there, warts and all, for everyone to see.

We may not like some of the things from our past, but it is there. We acknowledge it, and hopefully, we learned from it.

If the lds were the same way, I think it would help people understand a little more. Not necessarily agree, but understand.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul,
Sorry I offended you earlier.

You didn’t offend me. This isn’t personal.

We don’t know what “begotten in the spirit means” specifically. We may have an opinion about what it means, but that will be our opinion. You are giving all sorts of opinions that you say are doctrine, but your sources are not the scriptures or the words of the living prophets and apostles, so those opinions are just opinions.

I quoted the D&C and the official LDS web site, which other Mormons (like JLFuller) tell us is a reliable source of Mormon doctrine.

When someone uses a common word like “beget” or “begotten”, we should assume that it denotes the commonly understood meaning of the word and not some vague symbolic meaning. This is especially true when all of the necessary components exist to bring the common definition of the word into full usage. The Mormon Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s. He is a resurrected human, and we are not told that he is missing any of his “parts”. He has at least one wife, who is also a resurrected human woman with all her parts. When you have a man and wife and they are said to “beget” children, the meaning is clear unless the statement includes a disclaimer to the contrary. The LDS scriptures and leadership have never provided such a disclaimer. Therefore, the normal meaning of the word stands.

You are the one who asked me about what “seeds” meant. You were asking for my opinion, and I gave it to you. Bye.

No, I was asking you to cite official LDS doctrine. I don’t care about opinions.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I sincerely request that you do a word-study on “seed” in the Book of Mormon. I won’t do it for you, unless you request. It is a very good question. You are not “orthodox” LDS.

Jerusha, good idea:

1 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea.
• • •
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the Twelve Disciples of the Lamb, who are chosen to minister unto thy seed.
9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.
10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.
• • •
14 And the angel said unto me: Behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren.
15 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the people of my seed gathered together in multitudes against the seed of my brethren; and they were gathered together to battle.
• • •
19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed.
20 And it came to pass that I beheld, and saw the people of the seed of my brethren that they had overcome my seed; and they went forth in multitudes upon the face of the land.

10 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld many waters; and they divided the Gentiles from the seed of my brethren.
11 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.
12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
• • •
14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
• • •
30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.
31 Neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren.
• • •
34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.
35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb.
• • •
38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.
39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
• • •
41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

 

[PaulDupre]

Your word study reveals exactly what I was saying - “seeds” in Mormonism, like everywhere else, means literal biological offspring and descendents.

 

[ParkerD]

You didn’t offend me. This isn’t personal.

I quoted the D&C and the official LDS web site, which other Mormons (like JLFuller) tell us is a reliable source of Mormon doctrine.

When someone uses a common word like “beget” or “begotten”, we should assume that it denotes the commonly understood meaning of the word and not some vague symbolic meaning. This is especially true when all of the necessary components exist to bring the common definition of the word into full usage. The Mormon Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s. He is a resurrected human, and we are not told that he is missing any of his “parts”. He has at least one wife, who is also a resurrected human woman with all her parts. When you have a man and wife and they are said to “beget” children, the meaning is clear unless the statement includes a disclaimer to the contrary. The LDS scriptures and leadership have never provided such a disclaimer. Therefore, the normal meaning of the word stands.

No, I was asking you to cite official LDS doctrine. I don’t care about opinions.

Paul,
You can assume whatever you want to assume. To assume the “begetting” of spirit children is the same as the “begetting” of children in this life, is an assumption that I don’t make but you apparently do. We differ in our assumption. There is no specific doctrinal (from the scriptures or the living prophets) definition of the specific meaning.

You would be familiar with D & C 93:
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 

[Jerusha]

Thank you, Parker. Good beginning.

Paul, what is a good online resource for the D&C?

 

[PaulDupre]

Thank you, Parker. Good beginning.

Paul, what is a good online resource for the D&C?

I always use the official LDS site: scriptures.lds.org/

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie,
I assume you read my entire entry. When Mormons try to explain changes in policy, they may do it in ways that are imperfect. They may do it in ways that try to justify the new position in a way that whoever they are addressing can relate to. But the deep-down underlying principle is what I said earlier. A person either understands personal revelation and the idea of following a living prophet who receives revelation that may mean changes in policy, or they don’t. This is a perfect sifting process. You’ll never understand it if you haven’t personally experienced it, as I said before. Your misgivings allow you to go on with as much joy and happiness in your own life as you are willing to receive and to live for, and I think that’s great. As I’ve said before, you have what you want. I have what I want. We want different things.

First, it would be erroneous for you to assume that anyone, including me, had never experienced “personal revelation”. However, the doctrines of a church, if it is true, are not built on an assortment of personal revelations, nor are they agreed upon using some sort of synthesis of such “personal revelation”. The Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of “personal revelation” but that doesn’t automatically convert any personal revelation into doctrine.

In a way you’re getting to the core of the problem. If a religion is true, it’s not about what you want or what I want, it’s about what God wants. Because our Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the only Church that can make that claim, we have a history that goes back 2000 years that establishes that certain key doctrines of the church are permanent, they don’t change with the times.

In contrast, your Mormon church has been in existence less than 200 years and continues to undergo major shifts in doctrine and practice, complete with current denial that earlier doctrine was even doctrine. This is no small matter if the church is supposed to be true. If it’s merely a social network, continuing adaptations to society’s current fashions are fine, but it’s not a church.

 

[Jerusha]

Thanks. I still get a bit paranoid at times.

 

[ParkerD]

First, it would be erroneous for you to assume that anyone, including me, had never experienced “personal revelation”. However, the doctrines of a church, if it is true, are not built on an assortment of personal revelations, nor are they agreed upon using some sort of synthesis of such “personal revelation”. The Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of “personal revelation” but that doesn’t automatically convert any personal revelation into doctrine.

In a way you’re getting to the core of the problem. If a religion is true, it’s not about what you want or what I want, it’s about what God wants. Because our Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the only Church that can make that claim, we have a history that goes back 2000 years that establishes that certain key doctrines of the church are permanent, they don’t change with the times.

In contrast, your Mormon church has been in existence less than 200 years and continues to undergo major shifts in doctrine and practice, complete with current denial that earlier doctrine was even doctrine. This is no small matter if the church is supposed to be true. If it’s merely a social network, continuing adaptations to society’s current fashions are fine, but it’s not a church.

So then, as “Twopekingguys” said,
" The Catholic church history is out there, warts and all, for everyone to see.

We may not like some of the things from our past, but it is there. We acknowledge it, and hopefully, we learned from it."

I have to assume from your post that you firmly believe deep in your heart that every action or non-action taken by every pope since Peter was done by revelation.

You still miss the point. There is no “current denial that earlier doctrine (meaning that which was in published scriptures or in published agreed-upon writings of the then-living prophets and apostles in the LDS Church) was even doctrine.”

But you’re absolutely correct that we’re “getting to the core of the problem.” I think perhaps we’re beating a dead horse now.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So then, as “Twopekingguys” said,
" The Catholic church history is out there, warts and all, for everyone to see.

We may not like some of the things from our past, but it is there. We acknowledge it, and hopefully, we learned from it."

I have to assume from your post that you firmly believe deep in your heart that every action or non-action taken by every pope since Peter was done by revelation.

You still miss the point. There is no “current denial that earlier doctrine (meaning that which was in published scriptures or in published agreed-upon writings of the then-living prophets and apostles in the LDS Church) was even doctrine.”

But you’re absolutely correct that we’re “getting to the core of the problem.” I think perhaps we’re beating a dead horse now.

Parker, I’m sorry and I don’t mean to offend, but your statements show the typical Mormon lack of understanding of other faiths, in this case the Catholic faith. Every action or non-action taken by every Pope since Peter was not done by revelation. If you believe that Catholics believe that then you are wrong/misinformed. I suspect you are referencing Papal Infallibility, although I can’t know for sure, but your statement doesn’t describe that either. Unfortunately this lack of knowledge about other faiths does not surprise me since I was once told, in all seriousness, by a Mormon that to genuflect was to make the sign of the cross.

And Parker, you’re also incorrect, perhaps because you are so new here, that many Mormons who post to this forum deny doctrine that was taught AS DOCTRINE only a generation or two ago. So yes, there is very definitely a situation within the Mormon church where things that were once doctrine, and taught as such, are now denied. There are many members right here at this forum, some right here in this thread, that can testify to “doctrine” they were taught years ago, that is now denied as doctrine by current Mormons that post to the forum.

One would think when one finally reaches the core of an issue that persons actually interested in the issue would want to explore it. It’s interesting that when you believe you are getting to the core of an issue that’s the time you want to drop it. You can choose to do that, of course, but be consistent and don’t be offended later when yet another forum member comments that trying to pin down Mormon doctrine is like trying to “nail jello to the wall” or something similar, as that is what you are in the process of demonstrating here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
No. It was a question to try and get you to think about the far future. I wasn’t trying to offend you, unless you don’t want to think about the far future. Perhaps you don’t. Sorry, then.

I quoted the pertinent passages from Revelation. They aren’t “made up” and they aren’t the “fanciful tales of men.” Bye.

Hello ParkerD who is always saying goodbye.

Mormons do not properly understand the book of Revelations. In other words, you twist scripture to align to the fanciful tales of JS & Co.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I’m sorry and I don’t mean to offend, but your statements show the typical Mormon lack of understanding of other faiths, in this case the Catholic faith. Every action or non-action taken by every Pope since Peter was not done by revelation. If you believe that Catholics believe that then you are wrong/misinformed. I suspect you are referencing Papal Infallibility, although I can’t know for sure, but your statement doesn’t describe that either. Unfortunately this lack of knowledge about other faiths does not surprise me since I was once told, in all seriousness, by a Mormon that to genuflect was to make the sign of the cross.

And Parker, you’re also incorrect, perhaps because you are so new here, that many Mormons who post to this forum deny doctrine that was taught AS DOCTRINE only a generation or two ago. So yes, there is very definitely a situation within the Mormon church where things that were once doctrine, and taught as such, are now denied. There are many members right here at this forum, some right here in this thread, that can testify to “doctrine” they were taught years ago, that is now denied as doctrine by current Mormons that post to the forum.

One would think when one finally reaches the core of an issue that persons actually interested in the issue would want to explore it. It’s interesting that when you believe you are getting to the core of an issue that’s the time you want to drop it. You can choose to do that, of course, but be consistent and don’t be offended later when yet another forum member comments that trying to pin down Mormon doctrine is like trying to “nail jello to the wall” or something similar, as that is what you are in the process of demonstrating here.

Melanie,
Just because you have read comments by LDS people, does not make them doctrinal comments. If they quoted directly, specifically, precisely and with other cross-references on the matter in question using the scriptures and/or the unitedly acknowledged, published words of the living prophets and apostles, and didn’t interpret the words or make assumptions such as PaulDupre made above, then it could be said that they quoted doctrine. Otherwise, they stated opinions. Paul has said he doesn’t want opinions, he wants doctrine.

I think you understand the core issue. You seem to have acknowledged that some of the Catholic popes did not act under the guidance of revelation in certain cases. (Is that correct?) I would agree with that.

I was not shying away from exploring this core issue. But I think I have made it very clear what that issue is. How many different ways do you want me to say it?

 

[ParkerD]

Hello ParkerD who is always saying goodbye.

Mormons do not properly understand the book of Revelations. In other words, you twist scripture to align to the fanciful tales of JS & Co.

I do want to go, but I also don’t want to have been misunderstood. The apostle John saw what he saw, and wrote what he wrote. The words say what they mean, and mean what they say. They don’t have to be “aligned” or “properly understood” meaning that you will allow them to mean what you want them to mean. But you can tell yourself they mean whatever you want to tell yourself they mean.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie,
Just because you have read comments by LDS people, does not make them doctrinal comments. If they quoted directly, specifically, precisely and with other cross-references on the matter in question using the scriptures and/or the unitedly acknowledged, published words of the living prophets and apostles, and didn’t interpret the words or make assumptions such as PaulDupre made above, then it could be said that they quoted doctrine. Otherwise, they stated opinions. Paul has said he doesn’t want opinions, he wants doctrine.

I think you understand the core issue. You seem to have acknowledged that some of the Catholic popes did not act under the guidance of revelation in certain cases. (Is that correct?) I would agree with that.

I was not shying away from exploring this core issue. But I think I have made it very clear what that issue is. How many different ways do you want me to say it?

You continue to miss the point about evolving Mormon Doctrine Parker. I’m not sure how I can make it clearer, but I’ll try ~

• There are things that have been taught AS DOCTRINE by the Mormon Church that even persons that post to this forum have been taught in the past.
• Some of those things are currently denied as EVER being doctrine by current active members of the Mormon Church.

Get it? People right here in this forum, on this very thread, have personally witnessed this sort of doctrinal shift. You can’t chalk it up to personal interpretation or that sort of thing. It’s not about something I have read. To continue to deny the evolving doctrine simply aligns you with those others who deny the changes, without addressing the real issue of why there was a change.

As for your statement “You seem to have acknowledged that some of the Catholic popes did not act under the guidance of revelation in certain cases. (Is that correct?) I would agree with that.” What you have stated is utter nonsense and has nothing to do with what I previously stated. I have never “acknowledged that some Catholic popes did not act under the guidance of revelation in certain cases.” What I said that was that you do not understand the Catholic faith. I strongly suspect that you do not understand Catholic doctrine, personal revelation in the Catholic church, Papal Infallibility and a host of other subjects. But as to the subject at hand, I acknowledged nothing along the lines of what you have stated.