What is Considered Doctrine in the LDS Church

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert
You are getting it correct for as far as you go. The Fundamental LDS are not Mormons.

I’m sure they would tell me you are not a “real” Mormon.

JLFuller:

They have a different theology.

Yes. That was my point. Their theology is the theology of the LDS Church of the mid-1800s, “tailored” to their circumstances. The only distinction is that they claim a different prophetic line back to Joseph Smith.

JLFuller:

Polygamy is an ancient practice from OT times that was practiced only up to 1890 when the Church gave it up.

No. It was an excess that was tolerated from time to time, but never truly accepted by Jewish and Christian cultures. And the OT does not link the questionable practice to one’s eternal progression.

JLFuller:

It is not practiced by us but it is by the FLDS. It is an example of doctrine that changed to suit the times.

Yep. It sure is. That’s my point. LDS doctrine is changeable based upon what thecircumstances require. That’s not the God I know. It’s a human practice that, even if benign and in good faith, does not reflect enduring and real truth.

JLFuller:

In the USA, it was illegal and, as I understand it, we gave it up because it was more of a problem than a solution. I am afraid I am not the person to tell you much about it though because I know so little.

Read John Krakour’s book … Under the Banner of Heaven. It’s the story of a murder in Utah that has FLDS roots. It describes much of your church’s connection with the FLDS. Really, you should read it. And you should ask yourself that if polygamy was more of a problem than a solution just decades after your church was established, why was polygamy made such a fundamental tenet of eternal progression?

JLFuller:

Regarding homosexual marriage, the Church stands against it. It is a biblical injunction. . Homosexuality is not sanctioned now either.

But if it becomes necessary for the apparent survival of the LDS Church, we can see from history that key doctrines and teachings are discarded for the sake of political expediency.

JLFuller:

What prevents a prophet from makng big changes in doctrine? He does not make doctrine, Jesus Christ does. No doctrine is made without the Savior’s approval. It is then acknowleded by the Twelve and First Presidency.

So, with regard to polygamy then, at one time Jesus approved polygamy and told your Prophet that polygamy was necessary for one to eternally progress. Yet in a matter of decades Jesus was telling that same Prophet’s successor that polygamy must end. And you don’t see a problem with Jesus Christ contradicting Himself like that? Maybe I’m just not seeing this clearly, but God does not speak equivocally. Either Joseph Smith was wrong (in which case he was not a valid “prophet” and his restored church was false) or Jesus was wrong when he told JS that polygamy was necessary. You tell me where there is a third option, please.

JLFuller:

The change in who can hold the priesthood is another examaple of change in doctrine. If you read the story of how it came about you find that prophets have been praying to have it changed for decades. It wasn’t until 1978 that the Lord finally relented.

I agree this is another example of a change in doctrine. First, black skin was the mark of spirit children who bore guilt for not rejecting Satan’s attacks in the pre-born existence. They were to be understood as not morally capable of holding the priesthood authority of the LDS Church. But then, for political expediency and in the face of a public embarrassment, the LDS Church rejected that whole line of thought and allowed black men to hold the priesthood. This 180 in doctrine does not help your position regarding the legitimate claim to prophetic authority. Either the prophet was wrong in withholding priesthood authority from black men, or Jesus was wrong. I don’t think Jesus was wrong.

JLFuller:

Do you have any other questions about doctrine versus practices?

Yes. Are you now trying to say LDS doctrines don’t change but “practices” - i.e. “disciplines” can change. If so, then you’re contradicting your own earlier posts.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[hosemonkey]

Big shot,

I use the Gospel Principles manual every Sunday as a teacher. You have made an inference in your definition. I do know my own faith. I will always worship God the Father and Jesus Christ, in every conceivable sense, for eternity.

PaulDupre is more knowlegible than most mormons about mormonism, appearently including yourself. There are other mormons on this thread and on these forums who presume to teach Catholics our Faith while they have a very vague understanding of their own. Perhaps it is because mormonism changes too rapidly for them to keep up. Catholic doctrine is printed in books, mormon “doctrine” is found in loose-leaf binders, appearently. Makes the changes easier to promulgate. We happen to like Paul, he knows what he is talking about, and I am sure, short of undergoing a lobotomy, he has no intention of coming back to mormonism… Also, keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum, you are merely a guest.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think it sounds somewhat boring to be a servant for eternity–sorry. I have high expectations of myself, and what I do with my time. I am not satisfied if I feel like I am wasting time.
If 1 Cor 2:9 doesn’t “deny any possibility” then why to you object to the possibility I described?

Where did I object? I simply said that Paul’s quote did not contradict your quotes from Revelation and that it didn’t imply boredom or limitations. And where does 1 Cor. 2:9 say anything about being a servant??? Where in all of 1 Cor. 2 does it say anything about being a servant???

I personally don’t have the concept in my mind that spirit children will “worship” me. I think they will worship Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, just like I do.

Well then you personally don’t pay much attention to what your church teaches, your Gospel Principles Manual(which you say you use) says your spirit children will worship you.
In chapter 47 under blessings of Exaltation, number 3 is listed as this:

*“They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.”
*

“Inherit all things” is a pretty broad statement. A father usually wants his son to have everything he has, to be as happy as he is. This makes sense to me, but perhaps not to you.

But the son who inherits all the father has is still not who the father is.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD,
I enjoyed reading about you. Thanks. The LDS believe in the literal, corporeal resurrection of every person who has or will ever live on this earth, and that this is a free gift because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You could read from the Book of Mormon, Alma 11, on this topic. We also believe all infants or young children who die unequivocally and automatically go to heaven because of Christ and because they were not yet accountable. The resurrection means that each and every one of us will live forever. That would be a pretty important reason why we should give this life and its choices serious consideration, and seek God’s help in understanding His will in our lives. We ought to pray for that help every day.

Parker;

Thanks for the quick answer. As with many other cases, I see some similarities, and some differences concering the Resurrection and how it is perceived by our two churches. I wholeheartedly agree that we should seek God’s help in understanding His will for our lives, and that we should seek His grace to live a life for His purpose. Perhaps another thread could develop this discussion.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[zaffiroborant]

Big shot,
I use the Gospel Principles manual every Sunday as a teacher. You have made an inference in your definition. I do know my own faith. I will always worship God the Father and Jesus Christ, in every conceivable sense, for eternity.

I have not preached to you. I would not want a person like you around anyone I know. I’m glad you are happy with your religion. Please don’t “come back”. Enjoy what you have. Bye.

How funny the LDS participant on a Catholic board requests the Catholic to leave. What the heck is this

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Really?

In 1891 the First Presidency and Apostles of the Mormon Church made the following statement in a petition to the President of the United States:

Thanks Paul. I knew I’d seen something like this before. And Krakour’s book (Under the Banner of Heaven) was researched quite well in my personal opinion. It clearly links the issue of statehood to the issue of polygamy - the issue that defined the split between the LDS and FLDS churches, and was based on the FLDS refusal to reject the link between plural marriage and eternal progression. I concede my knowledge on the subject is limited to a few sources, but those sources seemed balanced and fair and well supported by primary source material as you have quoted above.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well said, my sister, well said.
Did you read my post about the couple who had a little boy with anencephaly who cared for him for such a short time, but whose little life brought such joy to them? Well, they named him Ira and his story has haunted and inspired me for many years. Even though they knew that his life would be short, they still loved him and gave him the dignity and respect that he deserved. I am sure that Ira awaits them in heaven.

Thanks.

I did read that post and it made me cry, but I’m a softie anyway.

This is the thing ~ we never want this to happen at the birth of a child. And 99% of the time, it won’t. Most of the time that a baby is conceived in love and brought to term, the baby will be healthy and everyone concerned will be happy. That doesn’t mean we can’t be aware and informed of what to do when the worst thing happens, or is about to happen.

People who know they are going to have a child that will not live long have a choice. They can take the “easy way out” (which isn’t as easy as it seems) and abort. Or they can choose to go to term. I recently heard of a woman (not someone I know personally) who knew she was going to have a child who had a physical defect that would cause the child to die shortly after birth. She also knew it was a boy. While still pregnant, she took him to baseball games, and parks, and wherever she might have wanted to take him had he lived and grown up. She did whatever she could, and I’m sure she talked to him about it at the time, to show him the world, even if it was only through her own eyes.

When it came time for the birth, they had a Priest there, and all the family. When the little boy was born, he was immediately baptized and confirmed. Then he met his family and they loved him until he died. You can be sure HE is waiting for his family to rejoin him in heaven, just like Ira. They were blessed, just like your friend Ira was blessed, and his entire family was blessed. This is a blessing that you have learned about, no wonder it inspires you!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul,

Those are very interesting quotes. If they are 100% accurate and were given as doctrine, not opionon, from Brigham young I stand corrected. As always, I would be very interested to find out how they were recorded, by whom and in what sort of setting. No one as of yet has been able to produce these for me when quoting the JoD.

I did like part of what you bolded in the second part though:

Let us consider that bolded statement for a moment. Consider our twelfth article of faith “obeying, honoring and sustain the law.” Does an individual or a church for that matter have the ability to practice polygamy righteously when the country in which they reside has laws which forbid that practice?

If taditional marriage were outlawed in Utah, would Mormons and Catholics cease getting married? No. They would marry under the authority of God’s law, as they understood it. I think that’s how the FLDS see it. Again, it was not my point to support polygamy. I was raising the issue to point out that, it seems to me, that the LDS Church changed their doctrine for political reasons - and JLFuller’s comment about “tailoring” doctrine to the time and place seems to fit quite nicely with my understanding. I fail to see the subtlety of his position.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, this sort of nastiness is unseemly and unbecoming of you if you worship God, Jesus (and the Holy Spirit ~ I trust leaving Him out was an oversight?) as you say.

Paul is a thoughtful, considerate gentleman and a sincere man of God, but he, like many of us, finds the mounting inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine (or lack thereof) to be troublesome. Instead of taking out your frustration out on him, take it out where it belongs ~ on the corporation (that’s from a Mormon bishop I know, so don’t give me grief about the term) known as your “church”.

The fact of the matter is that many things taught as “doctrine” in seminaries and Gospel Doctrine classes within the last generation or two are now disavowed by the same “church” that previously taught those things. This is no small matter. Evolving doctrine brings up the very essence of doctrine itself.

And Parker, I would further submit that, as a relative newcomer, it might behoove you to get the “lay of the land” in this forum before you start telling people off. Just a suggestion.

Melanie,
I came back after a few minutes to edit my last post, but the edit feature seems to be gone already. My apologies to Paul, but I was returning the favor of how he had written to me. Perhaps you didn’t read it. I don’t consider him a “gentleman”–more like a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He comes across that way over and over.

You needn’t worry about my participating here further. I did learn a few things about Catholicism. That was worthwhile. Thanks for your advice.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So, with regard to polygamy then, at one time Jesus approved polygamy and told your Prophet that polygamy was necessary for one to eternally progress. Yet in a matter of decades Jesus was telling that same Prophet’s successor that polygamy must end. And you don’t see a problem with Jesus Christ contradicting Himself like that? Maybe I’m just not seeing this clearly, but God does not speak equivocally. Either Joseph Smith was wrong (in which case he was not a valid “prophet” and his restored church was false) or Jesus was wrong when he told JS that polygamy was necessary. You tell me where there is a third option, please.

I agree this is another example of a change in doctrine. First, black skin was the mark of spirit children who bore guilt for not rejecting Satan’s attacks in the pre-born existence. They were to be understood as not morally capable of holding the priesthood authority of the LDS Church. But then, for political expediency and in the face of a public embarrassment, the LDS Church rejected that whole line of thought and allowed black men to hold the priesthood. This 180 in doctrine does not help your position regarding the legitimate claim to prophetic authority. Either the prophet was wrong in withholding priesthood authority from black men, or Jesus was wrong. I don’t think Jesus was wrong.

Yes. Are you now trying to say LDS doctrines don’t change but “practices” - i.e. “disciplines” can change. If so, then you’re contradicting your own earlier posts.

Peace,
-Robert

Robert, unless something has changed recently that my Mormon friends haven’t told me about, the restriction on polygamy is only “on the Earth”. The practice has been taken away from “the Earth” but not from Heaven.

In other words, in the Mormon “Celestial Kingdom” polygamy is still OK, if not the “norm”. (They also believe that there will be 7 righteous women for every righteous man so no wonder they have to have polygamy ~ so that every one of those righteous women can have a husband! Eternal progression and populating planets and being the Gods and Goddesses of those planets needs to continue!)

I just wanted to make sure you knew that polygamy has not been entirely disavowed by the Mormon “church” ~ only that the practice has been taken “from the Earth”. They still believe in it, technically. They just don’t practice it HERE.

 

[ParkerD]

How funny the LDS participant on a Catholic board requests the Catholic to leave. What the heck is this

Zaffiroborant,
He was a former LDS member. I was referring to that, not this forum. Sorry to have confused anyone. I’m the one who’s “leaving” this forum.

 

[ParkerD]

PaulDupre is more knowlegible than most mormons about mormonism, appearently including yourself.

I beg to differ. I was well aware that that particular sentence could be inferred to mean what the two of you have said, but I don’t have a spiritual witness that that is a true principle, so I said what I said and meant what I meant. Any supposed doctrine such as in this instance, that isn’t specifically taught by the living prophets and apostles or by the four scriptural texts we use, would not be doctrine–it would be an opinion.

I have been a guest, yes. I happened upon this website from a Google search. It drew my interest for a while. But I’ll move on now. LDSGuy does a great job.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I beg to differ. I was well aware that that particular sentence could be inferred to mean what the two of you have said, but I don’t have a spiritual witness that that is a true principle, so I said what I said and meant what I meant. Any supposed doctrine such as in this instance, that isn’t specifically taught by the living prophets and apostles or by the four scriptural texts we use, would not be doctrine–it would be an opinion.

I have been a guest, yes. I happened upon this website from a Google search. It drew my interest for a while. But I’ll move on now. LDSGuy does a great job.

Parker, you keep saying you’re going and you keep staying…

As to the theological principles of Mormonism, this thread, and others, have fairly well established that there truly aren’t any, because any so-called “principles” are continually evolving. Things that were taught before are no longer taught. It breeds confusion.

Funny, but one Mormon I know always says that the Devil is the source of confusion so maybe you need to think about what all this confusion really means.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, you keep saying you’re going and you keep staying…

As to the theological principles of Mormonism, this thread, and others, have fairly well established that there truly aren’t any, because any so-called “principles” are continually evolving. Things that were taught before are no longer taught. It breeds confusion.

Funny, but one Mormon I know always says that the Devil is the source of confusion so maybe you need to think about what all this confusion really means.

Melanie,
When I kept writing last night, I was taking my leave of the different people “in the room” who had responded to me. Since you have responded again, and since I am now aware of the “elephants in the room” that I didn’t know about since we are on-line strangers, I’ll add one more comment, then really go unless someone addresses me specifically since my intent has been to clarify misunderstandings here.

Going back to the book of Revelation, John also writes that “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” (Revelation 2:17)

What is the white stone about? It is about receiving personal revelation. The only people God is going to trust with the powers spoken of in the verse that says "“to him I will give power over the nations: and he shall rule over them with a rod of iron… and I will give him the morning star” (Rev. 2:26,27) are those people who have proven themselves to be able to be trusted that they know the “voice” of the Good Shepherd from all other “voices”, and the only way they will have proven themselves is by truly “overcoming” some sort of opposition and having to show that they do “know the voice.” A belief in personal revelation and in living prophets acknowledges that we are being guided every day, and the guidance can change. It can, in effect, say “go this way” today and “go that way” tomorrow. It can say “stop here” today and “go there” tomorrow. It is the voice of the spirit that Elijah wrote about and that Samuel heard as a boy.

So I expect there to be changes in direction as the prophet receives that direction and as we receive a confirmation within our hearts and souls that our personal revelation confirms those changes in direction. This can and does happen. It is the fundamental difference between the LDS faith and all other religions. You can’t swallow the idea of continuous revelation because you haven’t felt that personal spiritual witness such that you would even understand how that is possible. No one can who hasn’t felt it personally.

I will give two examples, then really go. In January 1976, I returned from my LDS mission to Los Angeles and during my “talk” in the local ward “sacrament meeting”, I said how I had loved meeting several wonderful Black people including one particular lady who was so full of love and joy, and I said I was looking forward to the not-too-distant day when Blacks would be proselyted to and would receive all of the full blessings of the gospel, as promised to them. Can you imagine how overjoyed I was in June 1978 when that spiritual impression I had had became reality? I was overjoyed!

In 1997, my wife gave emergency birth to a daughter who immediately had to have a tracheostomy and during her first year of life had to have a feeding tube inserted into her stomach whereby she gets most of her nourishment even now. She has flourished in life, for which I am profoundly grateful. She still has no jaw-joints, with a receded chin that many surgeries have not been able to fix in the major way needed. She has wonderful friends who have accepted the abnormal way her face looks. We were surrounded by people who helped our family during the crises of her early years of life when there were almost daily and later weekly visits to the hospital or the doctor for either surgeries or follow-up check-ups. We needed spiritual strength during this time, and we received it. Our other seven children needed spiritual awareness and understanding, and they received it.

We have grown immeasurably during the period of her life, both by observing her profound faith and love for others, and by seeing how God has supported her in her life though not “healing” her in the way that would allow removal of the tracheotomy and the feeding tube. Yet in my heart I know God is in charge ultimately of the timiing of when those possibilities may occur in her life. I have a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of that principle. We have grown from the challenge of her care requirements, and I wouldn’t have wished it on anyone but I am grateful for the challenge and the growth.

That is what I am talking about when I say that personal revelation is offered by God to humankind. It will guide us and strengthen us through the challenges of this life and the growing we will still do in the next life. This I know to be true. We should expect that to be a process of change, not stagnation, not staying in one place. Peace to all. Bye.

 

[Jerusha]

We needed spiritual strength during this time, and we received it. Our other seven children needed spiritual awareness and understanding, and they received it.

I see you are gone now. I hope you check back to read this. Other LDS people report that when they have exceptional children, they are blamed. The Mormon explanations for pain and suffering present a lot of questions for you. Perhaps your daughte was not valiant enough in the pre-existence. Or perhaps you are being punished for sins in your own lives. Or perhaps you and your family have ancestors for whose sins you are being punished. This certainly puts pressure on you to be a “perfect Mormon”

The Catholic explanation for pain and suffering is much more compassionate.

The Book of Mormon struggles with this, and comes up with some very bad answers. See Alma 26. The Lord’s “bowels of mercy is over all the earth” indeed!!!

 

[twopekinguys]

God doesn’t issue commandments to drive us crazy or to upset us. Instead, the commandments are there to facilitate a happy life.

How does such a concept square with carrying a baby to term when the child has a known defect that will cause it to die within minutes, hours or days? Because meeting the child, loving it, for however long a time there is, is better for the entire family, psychologically, than abortion. Allowing the child to come to term, if he/she can, and be born alive, even for a few minutes, and meet their family is better for everyone. Yes, the child dies, but not before everyone possible in the family has a chance to love him/her. The subsequent grieving process is more normal and natural.

In contrast, it is common, though seldom discussed, for women who had abortions, for whatever reason, to be riddled with grief and doubt even decades after the event. This is not healthy for them or anyone else. When the choice was made for abortion, often to assert the right of the woman to control her own body (which, of course, she could have done before having sexual relations ) it is likely no one imagined the life full of guilt and grief that would ensue.

The Mormon position is misguided, but is to be expected of a sect that continues to evolve doctrine over time.

I couldn’t agree more

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

I think it sounds somewhat boring to be a servant for eternity–sorry. I have high expectations of myself, and what I do with my time. I am not satisfied if I feel like I am wasting time.
If 1 Cor 2:9 doesn’t “deny any possibility” then why to you object to the possibility I described?
I personally don’t have the concept in my mind that spirit children will “worship” me. I think they will worship Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, just like I do.

“Inherit all things” is a pretty broad statement. A father usually wants his son to have everything he has, to be as happy as he is. This makes sense to me, but perhaps not to you.

The differences between our religions are this, we wouldn’t care if we had to worship and serve God for all of eternity! We love the idea of just being graced with his presence. If God chooses to have another plan for us, like giving us rule over something as y’all believe, then so be it. But we don’t worship God in order to gain something for ourselves (universes, or whatever y’all call it). We would worship and serve God for all eternity just to be able to touch a piece of dirt that fell from his shoe! (God probably doesn’t wear shoes, but I had to use something as an example) We do not expect anything else, but to just be with him, even if it means washing his feet nonstop for all of eternity! That is the difference in Catholics and Mormons worship and they way we hold God to certain levels! We hold God above all, no matter if we will gain a universe or not! That is not our motive at all!

 

[RebeccaJ]

It wasn’t hard to predict that you wouldn’t describe your belief. I will ask another question for which I predict you will give a similar non-response:

Describe in as minute detail as you can, what you will be doing on a day to day basis in a million years.

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.

 

[ParkerD]

I see you are gone now. I hope you check back to read this. Other LDS people report that when they have exceptional children, they are blamed. The Mormon explanations for pain and suffering present a lot of questions for you. Perhaps your daughte was not valiant enough in the pre-existence. Or perhaps you are being punished for sins in your own lives. Or perhaps you and your family have ancestors for whose sins you are being punished. This certainly puts pressure on you to be a “perfect Mormon”

The Catholic explanation for pain and suffering is much more compassionate.

The Book of Mormon struggles with this, and comes up with some very bad answers. See Alma 26. The Lord’s “bowels of mercy is over all the earth” indeed!!!

What in the world, Jerusha? You think I think we “are blamed?” What an extraordinarily misguided thing to say. I have a niece whose young child just passed away a month ago. They had a wonderful funeral. The child was blind, mute, had a chromosome deficiency, but communicated love to them and others and responded to their love. They were profoundly grateful for her and deeply saddened by her death from pnuemonia. Do you think there is some “blame” for that child’s condition? It sounds to me like you have gotten the LDS mixed up with the people Jesus was addressing when they asked him about the child who had been born blind. You are deeply confused. I am dumbfounded by your comment. Bye.

 

[PaulDupre]

A “seed” is synonymous with an “intelligence” in its early stage of development, in my opinion. The verse is admittedly vague. The point is that life goes on with the opportunity to receive the joy of observing the progress of other spirits in a very personal and intimate way, and participating in creating new earths to allow those spirits to have a place to gain a body and progress through living on an earth.

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

The Father of Jesus is our Father also. Jesus Himself taught this truth, when He instructed His disciples how to pray: “Our Father which art in heaven,” etc. Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. …

• Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith

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.