lattelady

Sometimes, in my relationship with God, as I pray and desire to hear from Him and wait for His Holy Spirit to speak to, I'll think I've gotten an answer, but I worry that: 'what if it's just me, my mind, telling me something (like the power of suggestion type-thing) and not really the Holy Spirit?' do you ever struggle with that?

To Gatorman: I hope you weren't insinuating that it was I that was "berating" you for your beliefs--not once have I berated ANYONE on this forum. Not once! John Doe: The only labels I'm even THROWING OUT (not ATTACHING to anyone) are ones that have been thrown out by others here (church members). THe whole point of this thread was to sort out what the Church teaches on the subject. I've gotten a multiplicity of answers. I've not pegged you as any one thing. I'm trying to figure out which it is. The portion of the gospel I've BEEN referring to is: does your Church believe in one God or many? THat's it. It's taken on a life of its own from there, mainly because it seems there are wide and varied beliefs. I never labeled anyone. I never berated anyone. Strangely, some are happy to take on a label and say: Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. We are monotheistic, but also henotheistic in the way we see other gods coming into the picture. (like Kawazu) Others, like you, seem very offended by that. Why?

That's okay...you should go to bed Pam if you're tired! Thankyou for reading the post, though. I appreciate the time you put in.

So the core doctrine of the church is that there is ONE GOD--monotheist--One God that you worship and give glory to. There ARE teachings that you can be exalted to godhood, but you would never be on the same level with GOD, so others should never consider that to mean Latter Day Saints are polytheistic. Am I saying that in a way that honors your beliefs?

So this is one of those areas, I guess, like lstinthewrld was talking about in another thread he started, where not all members agree on core doctrines--and they're entitled to their interpretations. I wasn't saying the Church DID teach henotheism, I was asking for clarification.

So to wrap up the confusion, :) "henotheistic" is what the LDS church is and teaches, not "monotheistic" teaching or "polytheistic" teaching?

You probably shouldn't suggest that I've never studied the Book of Mormon, since you and I are strangers to one another. I didn't ask a question in my post, rather I made a comment that the Book of Mormon seemed to argue the statement you made. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with other's challenges. I wasn't being rude or offensive. My posts typically demonstrate a genuine confusion that I have with the teachings and contradictions I find with the teachings at times.

Does Lds.net only want LDS people on this forum? If we're not members, do you just want us to read members' posts, but not comment? If this site is strictly for the LDS, I just wasn't aware; if we're not suppose to comment, I wasn't aware.

Justice, in the future, maybe you could just explain to me what the interpretation of that Scripture is (especially if the Church has an official stance on how that Scripture is interpreted)--the way I saw it was simply the way I read it. When compared to your statement about three personages, I didn't see how that meshed. You can just explain that to me, though, without the anger. I've been attacked more times on this forum than I can count--and I am in NO way attacking or belittling your faith.

Justice, why do you misquote me? Is that on purpose? I never said, "Attention: this is what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach." I said (it's quoted right in your post) "IT WOULD SEEM as though LDS doctring actually teaches that..." And as I read it at face value, that's what it reads. If your understanding tells you something else, that makes sense for you, but I'm making sense simply of what I read at face value. Why do you get defensive?

Moksha, the "urge for concreteness" comes because of the original dilemma I brought up which is: If I mention the words of Church leaders, I'm told that not everyone holds to those because they're not "canonized." If I ask why you hold to certain laws that seem to have no scriptural basis, I'm told it's because Church leaders have taught that this is the way it should be done or what should be done. But if it's not canonized, it should be up to each man or woman to decide before God. Which is what I've mentioned in other posts, and MANY have disagreed with me, saying that the Church leaders, teachers, prophets are to be listened to and trusted. I just am trying to understand and am confused by it.

Justice, it would seem as though LDS doctrine actually teaches that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not separate personages. 2 Nephi 26:12 says, "And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the ETERNAL GOD." And 2 Nephi 11:7 "For if there be no Christ there be not God; af if there be not God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and HE IS CHRIST, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time."

As I understood it, one of the things that sets the LDS church apart from other religions is that you have prophets who speak for God in these latter days. But so many of you are asserting that their words don't necessarily have binding authority because they're not included in "canonized scripture." I come from Utah, and I can tell you most assuredly that most members here hold the words of the prophets as "binding authority." So I am beyond suprised to find in this forum that many of you don't view the words of your prophets as such.

What is ABSOLUTE TRUTH in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? It's not the words of the prophets, ABSOLUTELY, because if it hasn't been canonized you can't be held to it. It's not the Bible, because it's not been translated correctly. It's the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, part of the Doctrine and Covenants? I want to be sure which books I can reference and know that it's concretely trusted.

Exodus 34:1 says "Now the Lord said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I WILL WRITE ON THE TABLETS THE WORDS THAT WERE ON THE FORMER TABLETS WHICH YOU SHATTERED." It didn't say "I will write new words that are a lesser law and easier to obey." Is this the verse you were asking me for?

John Doe, Moses didn't destroy the first set of commandments because the people couldn't follow them--to give them a lower/lesser Law. He destroyed them in ANGER because when he came off the mountain after his meeting with God, they were involved in worshipping a golden calf. He was enraged and threw the stone tablets down. EXodus 32:16-22. He had to go back up the mountain and God made a second set for him because he had destroyed the first one. (Exodus 34)

If they are gospel truths, then why would they not be binding? Truth is truth. If there is deception in it, or it is twisted, then I can see why you would not want to hold it dear or espouse to it. If it is truth,--gospel truth, then do you trust it? If you trust it, is that the same as believing it? IF you believe it, would you be willing to obey it? The logic isn't making sense, john doe.

Generally_me, I try to be open-minded. I've grown-up in Utah as a non-member since the 4th grade and been in innumerable conversations with LDS friends. I try to get to know LDS scripture so that I can have a conversation that comes from a genuine place instead of speaking out of ignorance. My questions come from a genuine place as well--a place of confusion and and a longing to understand and sort out. I hope I would never disrespect ANYONE. As I grew up in Utah I was not always treated with respect (I actually had neighbors who found out I wasn't a member and the mother of the children who were playing outside shooed her children indoors in our presence--it made us feel as though we were diseased). Believe me, I know that not everyone is that way, I don't judge ANYONE on this site. There are people who tend to get VERY defensive: not sure where that comes from. I appreciate being able to have conversation and gain insights--I REALLY appreciate when people are willing to be open, honest and transparent. THanks, Generally_me, for your transparency and kindness.

Thankyou, Pam for being honest with me.

I must confess, I'm very confused by multiple references to not having to be bound by certain teachings from your own prophets or leaders. In other threads, the whole reason you hold to certain teachings/beliefs (i.e. we should wear white shirt and tie/dresses to church, for example) is because men who you respect and believe are speaking on God's behalf have taught these things. At other times, when church leaders are quoted, you say "we aren't bound to these things." I don't understand what you mean by both views.

I'm reading from that that your Church proclaims you can become a God.

"The Articles of Faith", Talmage p.430 "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive...whose perfection consists in eternal advancement--a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the ETERNAL TRUTH: 'AS MAN IS, GOD ONCE WAS; AS GOD IS, MAN MAY BE." {caps mine}

Do you (as a Church) agree with the post-er who said, "We are not men who will be turned into Gods...we literally are Gods. We grow up, that's it--how mature we get--will depend on us." Is this taught?

I understand it a totally different way. I think it's telling the reader what is true--"what I the Lord have spoken" and that His words will ALL be fulfilled, and that the words of His servants "the voice of my servants" they will be fulfilled the same as His--all of them. It says to search them BECAUSE ("for") they are "true and faithful"--they can be trusted. Where does it say prove them? It says they will all be fulfilled.

So, I think in fairness, b_1829 was just trying to get a straight answer and was getting bullied and talked down to by Snow. I understand that moderators can't be omnipresent, but I do wonder why some behaviors are allowed, while other simple questions are pounced on.