cooling

Hey, I know this thread is old now but I was lurking around the board and realized I never thanked everyone for trying their best to answer my questions. I appreciate that you guys took the time to explain your own views on the topics to me. I guess there's a lot that isn't doctrinal, but I think the one that kept bugging me was that I have a copy of Mormon Doctrine which was written by a prophet. Since it was published as doctrine by a prophet I had always assumed that it was considered doctrinal. Most of it doesn't apply anymore though, and not just things that were changed by continuing revelations. That mark of cain no blacks in the priesthood thing is very clearly stated several times in the book, but now everyone says it was never doctrine. It's really really confusing.

The whole "less valiant in the premortal existence" thing was really bothering me, so I'm glad to hear that it's not actual doctrine. Which goes back to my original post here, that for an outsider (and even for insiders I think) it gets really difficult to tell what's official doctrine and what's just speculation. So, if I'm understanding you guys correctly, the sealings are only necessary if you want your family to grow and progress in the afterlife, right? So we will all still be ourselves and be free to live out eternity with our earthly family if we so choose, just so long as they're not in a higher kingdom of Heaven? And I remember hearing something about how spirits can visit the lower kingdoms, but not visit higher kingdoms than the one they're assigned to. Is that correct? And is the scripture clear on exactly what sealing means when it comes to children? Like, say you have three children and they are all sealed to you. Those children grow up and get married in the temple and sealed to spouses of their own, and those spouses have faithful sealed families as well... Where would those kids wind up in relation to you? Sorry for the bombardment of questions. Just trying to wrap my head around the important stuff.

Not one of my sticking points at all. I don't see how that's any harder to grasp than God sending down his only begotten son to be born of a virgin and die for our sins. Faith is all about the incredible. Where I'm getting stuck is in lack of clarity. I know there are plenty of things we aren't supposed to have answers to yet, but sometimes I find answers and then get told they're the wrong answers even though they were taught by the church at some point. I don't see what difference it would make how old he was or where he lived. God has never struck me as someone who would judge the abilities of a prophet based on those factors, so why should we?

Thanks so much for the help here. So ignoring the controversy surrounding Brigham Young, does official Mormon Doctrine state that dark skin is a mark of lesser valiance in the pre-existence? I have read this in official church materials, but they were older ones and you guys said it was best to stick with the newer publications. So does anyone know if that's something that's considered unchanging doctrine? And if so, was there ever a reason given why God gave the revelation to change the policy regarding the priesthood?

Okay, I read through some of that link you posted to (not all 11 pages admittedly) and I guess I'm not the only concerned by some of Brigham Young's teachings. Someone in the thread mentioned the importance of self-revelation and not blindly following any man, even if he was a prophet. I agree completely, but that contradicts other church literature I've read like "The 14 Points of Following the Prophet." Which is the current stance of the church? And if the church doesn't have an official stance, then what are your own stances? If the current prophet issued a revelation that you felt in your heart to be wrong, and then you prayed about it and still felt it was not God's will, what would you do? Do you think that God wants us to disobey his prophets sometimes, or does he expect us to follow their leadership completely?

Oh and Suzie, I love the Nibley quote in your signature. I think getting caught up in those little things takes so much away from what's actually important.

How do you mean? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "sticking point"

Well... The chatters on the mormon site are missionaries. That's why it bothered me that he denied the teaching so much. I appreciate your explanations :) If you're up for it here are a few more things I'm confused about. 1. Eternal families. Okay, I get the concept, I understand how sealings work, I know that only marriage in the temple lasts longer than till death. None of that confuses me. What confuses me is what would stop me from being with my family anyway, if we were all in the same kingdom of Heaven? Like, say my family and I live excellent lives of charity and humility and service to others, but we never really feel the testimony of or join the Mormon church. Since we're not members we're clearly not sealed, so we'd probably wind up in the terrestrial kingdom, right? So what stops my family from still being eternal? Is it just that my spouse and I aren't officially married? Couldn't we still be together as a family if we chose to? What if I'd rather be with my family on a voluntary basis than being "Sealed" to them? I don't imagine that God would have armed sentries keeping us from rejoining each other in the afterlife or anything. 2. The role of women. I mean, I love children and would be happy to be a mother someday, but I just can't believe that having children is the only thing God has intended for me. What if I were terrible with children and didn't want any, but still wanted to serve God? I know that there's no proclamation stating that women have to have children in the church, but it seems to be very much emphasized. I have a career that I love and that I could do while being a mother, but I feel like the scripture suggests that unless it's necessary to get by, I should stay home with my children while my husband works. Has this attitude changed at all? I know plenty of Mormon women who work and have careers and go to school, so I'm fully aware that it's not a requirement. I'm just wondering if being a mother is still the ultimate goal for a woman according to the church. 3. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic, but the whole thing with blacks and the priesthood. Some of the things that Brigham Young said about black people are really upsetting to me, and while I know that not all words spoken by a prophet are spoken as a prophet, I have a hard time believing that anyone who advocated for the killing of biracial couples and their offspring would have been someone God would want us to follow. I know that blacks are now given equal rights within the church, but is it still considered doctrinal that their dark skin was a mark that they were less valiant in the pre-existence? Because I've read this in officially endorsed by the church doctrine. While I feel that science and faith can and should peacefully coexist, the scientist in me makes a lot more sense when I ponder why there are different races in the world. Those are the big ones there. I have others, but they're much easier and more just things I would love to discuss and kick ideas back and forth on. I find the scriptures fascinating... Just sometimes quite confusing.

I am familiar with the whole milk before meat principle. Is it possible that some of my confusion comes from well-meaning members who think they need to with-hold information from me because I might not be ready for it? I mean, I get where they're coming from, but that seems sort of dishonest to me. A chatter on Mormon.net actually told me that the church did not and had never taught that men could become gods. That's clearly not true, and I don't know if he was confused or lying to me, but either way it made me not want to ask the official church site any more questions. I do understand most of the basics. I've done a lot of reading and asking questions and studying and pondering, but I just don't know what to do when the answers I get contradict each other.

Okay... Well the first one that I'm having a rough time with is the whole teaching about men becoming gods. I have a copy of Gospel Principles from the '70s and in it there are numerous references to how we will become gods and have our own spirit children in the CK. From what I read I believed that the church taught that our entire reason for leaving the CK in the first place was so that we could progress to the next stage of development, which was godhood. We couldn't achieve that growth without testing ourselves first on earth. It's all pretty plainly laid out in the older literature from the church, but I feel like the past twenty years have seen a lot of waffling on the controversial issues, and I find it a little sad. When I first read the story of the pre-existence and the ultimate goal of returning and being exalted as gods I thought it was really interesting and unique. But now when I try and ask about it I get told that we can become like gods but not actual gods. That doesn't make any sense to me. The way I understood it when I read about it was that we would still answer to our Heavenly Father, as he would still be our creator, but we would be gods responsible for making our own creations once we became exalted. So if that teaching changed, why did it change? I feel like it used to be official doctrine, but now it's just speculation. What changed that? And if doctrine can become speculation, then how do we know what doctrine is actually doctrine?

Hello everyone, I'm not a member of the church but I have been looking into your beliefs and history for some time now and I find myself getting really confused on several points. I'm not trying to attack any of the scriptures or doctrines or anything like that. I'm really just trying to get a better grasp on what's what, and hoping someone here can maybe give me a couple of solid answers. So first, what officially qualifies as "Doctrine"? I mean, I've read Gospel Principles and it states that official doctrine includes the Book of Mormon, the KJV of the bible, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, along with the teachings of the church's current prophet. But then when I ask about things I've read in those sources I get told that those things are not official doctrine. And some things I've read in those sources I'm told are wrong and that the church never taught them. I know that certain things like endowment ceremonies and temple rituals are considered sacred, and thus most LDS are hesitant to talk about them, but the basic principles and beliefs aren't supposed to be secret, are they? Because I've talked to several members of the church about certain issues and been given different answers by all of them. Where is the best place to find official church teachings and answers? I was told to go to the official LDS.net website, but I actually got several different answers there as well, which left me even more confused. I'd be happy to pose some of the specific questions that I have to the board if you guys feel like you'd be up for answering them. First though, I just want to know what or who I can count on as an official source of reliable information, since I can't exactly call up the prophet and ask him.