When Did the "Mormon Jesus" Become Divine?

[majick275]

You see Amgid,
This is why I have confusion/frustration/etc. I have two individuals both claiming to be TBMs, both claiming to be “sola scriptura” saints. (those who believe all doctrine is soley contained within the standard works). Now one says “I’ve never heard of eternal progression, I don’t know what that means, It’s not in the standard works and not LDS doctrine”. The other tells us that the LDS church has always believed that and can’t understand any member not knowing that doctrine.

I look back at previous posts and it “appears” that the described doctrine has been consistently defined in questions to both.

Do you not see this as a difficulty when there is no authoratative catechism equivalent to refer to ?

I’ll ask you this in order to understand your own personal beliefs.

Do you believe that your heavenly father has a father and if so is he a God?

Do you believe that earthly humans who reach the highest level of exaltation in the celestial kingdom will someday govern worlds where their spiritual offspring will be given bodies and be allowed to progress? if so, who will be their tempter and who will be their savior?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Did you go and look at the LDS website that you recomended to see what they said about eternal progression?

No, I didn’t. I will let you do that. You go and have a look at those websites, then come up with what you think is an accurate definition of “eternal progression,” and then I will tell you whether it is LDS doctrine or not.

Please take a look and then tell me if they are wrong. (in your opinion)

I will leave you to do that research, and tell me the result.

You see Amgid,
This is why I have confusion/frustration/etc. I have two individuals both claiming to be TBMs, both claiming to be “sola scriptura” saints. (those who believe all doctrine is soley contained within the standard works). Now one says “I’ve never heard of eternal progression, I don’t know what that means, It’s not in the standard works and not LDS doctrine”. The other tells us that the LDS church has always believed that and can’t understand any member not knowing that doctrine.

I suggest you don’t try to pit me against Kathryn. That is not going to work. LDS aren’t like zombies where they all think exactly the same. They have their own opinions on things. She has her own opinions and views, and I have mine. I respect her views, and I assume she respects mine. If you have a question about her opinions, you have to address them directly to her. If you have a question about my opinions, you have to address them to me. I can’t speak for her she can’t speak for me.

I look back at previous posts and it “appears” that the described doctrine has been consistently defined in questions to both.

I don’t know what you are referring to here.

Do you not see this as a difficulty when there is no authoratative catechism equivalent to refer to?

Oh yes there is! The authoritative catechism is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

I’ll ask you this in order to understand your own personal beliefs.
Do you believe that your heavenly father has a father and if so is he a God?

No I don’t. There is no such doctrine revealed in LDS scripture. It has been speculation on the part of some, and when people speculate on doctrine, 99 times out of 100 they get it wrong. The most accurate answer that I can give I suppose is that I don’t know. I don’t think that anybody knows. But I would say that it is extremely doubtful.

Do you believe that earthly humans who reach the highest level of exaltation in the celestial kingdom will someday govern worlds where their spiritual offspring will be given bodies and be allowed to progress?

Absolutely unknown. I have no idea whether that is true or not, and my personal opinion is that it most probably is not. I can tell you what LDS scripture says about that. That is the safest thing that you can rely on, trust me! All the information that has been revealed on the subject are to be found in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Verse 19 states that those who shall inherit this degree of glory will receive exaltation and glory, “which glory shall be a fulness ** and continuation of seeds forever and ever**”. Verse 30 informs us that this is the promise which was originally given to Abraham: “…and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue, as innumerable as the stars …” That is ALL that LDS scripture says about the subject. It says that they shall have a “continuation of seeds forever and ever,” and that their seed should both in the world as well as “out of the world” continue. How exactly that “continuation of seeds” takes place we just don’t know. That is all that it says. It says nothing about creating planets and saving them, and it says nothing about spirit children, or physical children, or having sex in heaven, or having pregnant wives in heaven, and all the rest of it. Thy are all speculation–and very irresponsible speculation at that. They are not true. LDS scripture also teaches that all faithful saints will become the “seed” of Jesus Christ. So how are you going to interpret that?

if so, who will be their tempter and who will be their savior?

No idea! Your guess is as good as mine. No such doctrine found in LDS scripture.

amgid

 

[majick275]

You say this but just today, my parents sent me the LDS lesson from sunday school in their ward( they still have hope that the “apostate” will return). I still have a gospel doctrine teachers manual. (current version) Doctrine and Covenants and Church History p.186 (available online at www.lds.org)

This is CLEARLY taught in this lesson, this very day in LDS churches throughout the world.

I find your reluctance to look at the website that YOU recomended difficult to understand. If you believe in a different doctrine than that which is taught by the LDS church then that is your right but it make it a lot more clear if you would say so.

Scriptures are not the same as a catechism. They can be the source of doctrine but they aren’t written (except for the articles of faith) in a manner that serves as a list of doctrinal truths.

Your beliefs (now that you have defined them in a way that I can understand) seem different than what I taught and was taught throughout my time as a TBM. it also differs greatly from any active LDS member that I have known. That isn’t necessarily bad or wrong, just surprising.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Amgid;

You wrote:

If you are going to rely on those books to do your thinking for you, then I can’t debate with you. I can’t debate with a book! Suppose I disagreed with the conclusions of those books, where am I going to find the authors of those books to argue it out with them? I can’t argue it out with you be cause you obviously don’t have a personal opinion on the subject. You rely on them to do your thinking for you. That brings us to a dead end.

You are saying that it is not appropriate to read and consider other sources when forming your opinion as to the interpretation of Scripture, including historical and scholarly sources. That’s just silly. You are suggesting that the best way to interpret Scripture is in a vacuum, from an entirely uninformed position. Notice I am not elevating these other sources to the level of doctrine as you are apparently assuming. Instead I consider the logic of their positions and arguments much as I consider the logic of yours. I find the Early Church Fathers and Ludwig Ott to be much more persuasive than you up to this point. But how would you know? You are apparently unwilling to consider what they have to say on the matter. I think you are afraid they may challenge your own scriptural interpretations and so you dismiss them as “doctrines of men.”

If you disagree with the positions taken by scholars and early writers as to what scripture means you are certainly free to tell me why you disagree. That would be a very interesting discussion. Your conclusion that I don’t have a personal opinion because I’ve considered scholarly and historical writings in coming to my own conclusions on doctrine is a non-sequiter. I think you are quite good at obfuscation as well as self-deception. I think it is your intractable refusal to acknowledge my opinion that brings our discussion to a dead end.

You also wrote:

The truth is that those learned scholars have a vested interest to support the particular brand of theology that they adhere to, and “truth” kind of tends to get left behind in those cases.

And you do not? Right! I think you are working very hard to ignore the inconsistency between Christ as eternal God and Christ as a spirit child of an exalted human being. Be that as it may, you have not even begun to show how truth has been “left behind” by men like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, and John Paul II. Instead you attack me for “not having an opinion of my own” because I have also read writings of the early church and modern bible scholars when studying the word of God. Are you suggesting that one should not consider the opinions of others when interpreting Scripture. You must also be against homilies, sermons, bible studies, apologetics, or any sort of fellowship that involved a study of the Scriptures beyond one’s own opinion.

You also wrote;
Yea, I have heard of that before! Peter and John and the disciples of Jesus were uneducated fishermen. They didn’t have any PhDs! The gospel was addressed to them. If they could understand it without a PhD in Classics, so can I (and you)!

They also spoke aramaic and greek. Plus they were first-person witnesses to the Gospel as it was being preached by Christ. Plus, they did not have to consider the writings of the New Testament as that was not written until much later. You are reading the Gospel in 66 (or 73) different books written over thousands of years, collected by the Church over hundreds of years. The scriptures were written by numerous authors, in ancient languages, that have been translated into English. Plus, you do not have the benefit of listening to Jesus speak directly to you as the Apostles did. And finally, one thing that is quite clear from the four Gospels of the bible is that on many occasions the Apostles did NOT “get it” and Christ had to explain it to them. You are proving my point here. You are not an Apostle.

Finally, you wrote;

There isn’t any that will be of any benefit to you. The answer is the one given by Alma in the Book of Mormon, which I had quoted earlier:

I didn’t think there would be. Nice talking with you.

Are there any charitable LDS members out there who are willing to continue to discuss the topic of when do mormons believe that Jesus became divine?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

You say this but just today, my parents sent me the LDS lesson from sunday school in their ward (they still have hope that the “apostate” will return). I still have a gospel doctrine teachers manual. (current version) Doctrine and Covenants and Church History p.186 (available online at www.lds.org)

This is CLEARLY taught in this lesson, this very day in LDS churches throughout the world.

I had a look, and you are right; that quote does exist in the latest Gospel Doctrine manual. It is probably a leftover from previous editions. This manual was originally published in 1999, and updated in 2003. The current edition is a reprint of the 2003 update. The only explanation I have for it is that the doctrine in question has been in wide acceptance in the Church for a long time, and there are a lot of people who still believe it; and it is not the policy of the Church to try and change such errors by a sudden dictatorial decree from above. When such errors in doctrine are discovered in the Church, they are usually allowed to die out gradually, rather than by a drastic fatwa from above. Also, the First Presidency cannot personally monitor manual and Church publication that is produced. But the quotes that you had given me earlier on from an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley indicates that he no longer accepts that doctrine as being correct; and if he no longer accepts it, then chances are his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve don’t either.

I find your reluctance to look at the website that YOU recomended difficult to understand. If you believe in a different doctrine than that which is taught by the LDS church then that is your right but it make it a lot more clear if you would say so.

I am not reluctant to look at it. The problem is that you keep changing the subject. You jump around in order to sidestep the issue when you have no answer for it. I had asked you to have a look at those websites, and give me an accurate definition of “eternal progression”. Then I said I would tell you whether it is LDS doctrine or not. But you have not done so. I think I know why. The reason is that although many people have used this expression in their talks and writings, nowhere have they actually defined it. It means different things to different people. To you it means that people who are exalted in the Celestial Kingdom have sex with their polygamous wives, and their wives become pregnant with spirit kids, and then they go to spirit hospital give birth to spirit babies, and when they have enough of them spirit babies they create a planet for them, and send them down into their planets to experience mortality, and then provide a savior and a devil for them so that they can have the same kind of experiences that we have been through. And you are telling me that this is what I must believe if I want to call myself a Mormon, otherwise I am not a real Mormon! Well I am going to have to disappoint you with that. That is not Mormonism. That may be what you understand by “eternal progression,” but that does not mean that everybody else who has used that expression means by it the same thing. Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I believe I am truthful in saying that I have never used this expression in my teachings, preachings, and explaining the gospel to other, precisely because it has such an imprecise meaning. It means different things to different people. I am being perfectly honest with you by saying that I don’t really know what it is supposed to mean.

Scriptures are not the same as a catechism. They can be the source of doctrine but they aren’t written (except for the articles of faith) in a manner that serves as a list of doctrinal truths.

Well, you can have your catechism, and I will stick to my standard works! They have stood me in good stead so far, and I don’t think there is a need for a catechism.

Your beliefs (now that you have defined them in a way that I can understand) seem different than what I taught and was taught throughout my time as a TBM. it also differs greatly from any active LDS member that I have known. That isn’t necessarily bad or wrong, just surprising.

I refer you again to the quotes which I had given you from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and J. Reuben Clark, as well as from the D&C, in another thread, which you persist in turning a blind eye to. You must understand that this is the official position of the Church, that the standard works are the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine, that anything that cannot be supported from that source is not ultimately true LDS doctrine, but speculation; and anything that manifestly contradicts them is false doctrine. When you have finally come to get your head round that idea, then “the apostate is ready to return”!

amgid

 

[majick275]

amgid:

I had a look, and you are right; that quote does exist in the latest Gospel Doctrine manual. It is probably a leftover from previous editions. This manual was originally published in 1999, and updated in 2003. The current edition is a reprint of the 2003 update. The only explanation I have for it is that the doctrine in question has been in wide acceptance in the Church for a long time, and there are a lot of people who still believe it; and it is not the policy of the Church to try and change such errors by a sudden dictatorial decree from above. When such errors in doctrine are discovered in the Church, they are usually allowed to die out gradually, rather than by a drastic fatwa from above. Also, the First Presidency cannot personally monitor manual and Church publication that is produced.

Yet that is exactly what is understood to be “leading” the church. Comon sense would dictate that the first presidency would maintain an awareness of what is being taught in Gospel Doctrine classes. There is also the matter of them in fact approving these materials. (look inside the books themselves for this)

amgid:

But the quotes that you had given me earlier on from an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley indicates that he no longer accepts that doctrine as being correct; and if he no longer accepts it, then chances are his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve don’t either.

Yet he doesn’t refute this doctrine, rather he says he doesn’t know. He later (as I referenced) said to the church (as opposed to the media) that He does know what is taught and what is doctrine. (once again NOT refuting this doctrine in any way) this would seem to indicate that He still believes it. (Just as He did when he wholeheartedly endorsed it in his 94 conference talk)

amgid:

I am not reluctant to look at it. The problem is that you keep changing the subject. You jump around in order to sidestep the issue when you have no answer for it. I had asked you to have a look at those websites, and give me an accurate definition of “eternal progression”. Then I said I would tell you whether it is LDS doctrine or not. But you have not done so. I think I know why. The reason is that although many people have used this expression in their talks and writings, nowhere have they actually defined it. It means different things to different people.

Actually it was to avoid confusion. I wanted to establish the LDS church as the authority for determining what is/is not doctrine rather than you. I will agree with you that it means different things to different people. I find that somewhat irrelevant as I DO believe that it is clearly defined by the LDS leadership.

amgid:

To you it means that people who are exalted in the Celestial Kingdom have sex with their polygamous wives, and their wives become pregnant with spirit kids, and then they go to spirit hospital give birth to spirit babies, and when they have enough of them spirit babies they create a planet for them, and send them down into their planets to experience mortality, and then provide a savior and a devil for them so that they can have the same kind of experiences that we have been through.

Not exactly. your exageration provides some “counter shock value” but I don’t see a need for hospitals when childbirth was only made “painful” after the fall. One would suppose that in a celestial kingdom all would be ideal. Other than that though you seem to capture the essence of what I see as exactly what numerous LDS leaders have clearly defined.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

amgid:

And you are telling me that this is what I must believe if I want to call myself a Mormon, otherwise I am not a real Mormon! Well I am going to have to disappoint you with that. That is not Mormonism. That may be what you understand by “eternal progression,” but that does not mean that everybody else who has used that expression means by it the same thing. Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I believe I am truthful in saying that I have never used this expression in my teachings, preachings, and explaining the gospel to other, precisely because it has such an imprecise meaning. It means different things to different people. I am being perfectly honest with you by saying that I don’t really know what it is supposed to mean.

Now here is where I will (surprisingly) agree with you. You are free to define your own personal beliefs and also state your affiliation. (Mormon). I wil accept your word that you personally have not espoused/accepted/taught this doctrine. I also am willing now to accept that you see this term as still remaining in the category of “yet to be revealed” as far as the “final” definition. I will contend though that the LDS church, on the other hand, does not seem to share the same view.

amgid:

Well, you can have your catechism, and I will stick to my standard works! They have stood me in good stead so far, and I don’t think there is a need for a catechism.

Fair enough. But I think that a catechism BASED on the “standard works” would seem a godsend for those seeking to know what the LDS church doctrine IS.

amgid:

I refer you again to the quotes which I had given you from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and J. Reuben Clark, as well as from the D&C, in another thread, which you persist in turning a blind eye to. You must understand that this is the official position of the Church, that the standard works are the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine, that anything that cannot be supported from that source is not ultimately true LDS doctrine, but speculation; and anything that manifestly contradicts them is false doctrine. When you have finally come to get your head round that idea, then “the apostate is ready to return”!
amgid

I don’t turn a blind eye to these, rather I find these same sources emphatically denying a “sola scriptura” basis for doctrine. They all praise, glorify, etc, the standard works. (as well they should) they firmly establish scripture as a key element in defining doctrine. They also emphasize that whatsoever “the prophet” speaks IS the will of God. I think that you could easily find where LDS scripture does not conflict with but even supports “eternal progression”. Certainly in the BoA and the D&C. You could at least avoid the issue in the BoM and the Bible where it contradicts could be said to be incorrectly translated.

You see, it’s all about what point of view you start with as to what you see as supporting/refuting ANY doctrines when you ONLY use the “standard works”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Any other LDS members out there that can clear up the confusion for me? Why does there seem to be inconsistency in LDS doctrine where one the one hand Got is eternal, but on the other hand he was once human. Does it all come down to semantics or is there an inconsistency that one must simply accept as a member of the LDS faith?

Peace,

 

[PaulDupre]

I’m no longer LDS, but let me point out that the LDS have different definitions for most of the words that we use when talking about religion. That’s one reason it’s so confusing to discuss anything with them, and why they can agree with you to your face but not really agree in principle.

For instance, the word “eternity” to a Mormon means “from the moment when a man ascends to godhood until all his spirit children have gone through the plan of salvation”.

That way, the missionaries can agree with a potential convert that “God is eternal” and the poor guy has no idea (until some time after he is baptized) that before this current “eternity”, their god was just some guy like you and me. The missionary aims to be a god too, in a later “eternity”.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Robert_in_SD]

PaulDupre:

I’m no longer LDS, but let me point out that the LDS have different definitions for most of the words that we use when talking about religion. That’s one reason it’s so confusing to discuss anything with them, and why they can agree with you to your face but not really agree in principle.

For instance, the word “eternity” to a Mormon means “from the moment when a man ascends to godhood until all his spirit children have gone through the plan of salvation”.

That way, the missionaries can agree with a potential convert that “God is eternal” and the poor guy has no idea (until some time after he is baptized) that before this current “eternity”, their god was just some guy like you and me. The missionary aims to be a god too, in a later “eternity”.

God bless,
Paul

I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusion from my own independent examination of this particular issue. However, I would like to hear the LDS response to the issue. Would they agree with your explanation that eternity means something other than what we as Catholics understand it to mean, and if so, what is their reason for making the distinction so hard to work out? Is it just to confuse, or are there really some other explanations for keeping the distinction vague?

 

[mormon_fool]

Robert in SD:

I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusion from my own independent examination of this particular issue. However, I would like to hear the LDS response to the issue. Would they agree with your explanation that eternity means something other than what we as Catholics understand it to mean, and if so, what is their reason for making the distinction so hard to work out? Is it just to confuse, or are there really some other explanations for keeping the distinction vague?

Robert,

I don’t have time right now to tailor a long response to your actual questions. You may want to find the thread were I laid out my personal musings about an eternal reference frame. I mixed in some concepts from Einstein, Doctrine and Covenants 19, and from what the ancient Hebrews meant by eternity. Catholics follow more of a Platonic definition of eternity. The whole thread is good, but my best post is #56.

My personal musings about eternity are at odds with other LDS.Distinctions are kept vague because we do not know (at least not in a binding doctrinal sense) what happened before “the Beginning”.

later,
fool

 

[paul_barlow]

please be careful who you are mocking. your view of god is diffrent from ours.
BUT HE STILL IS YOUR GOD. DO NOT MOCK HIM.
we know what happens to them. attack us attack our church but do not mock your god and your saviour.

 

[PaulDupre]

Sorry Paul, but your “god” is not my God.
Paul