The Folk Prophet

Thanks. Just be aware that when we don't agree you need to seriously rethink your position. j/k

Quoting myself because I rethought. If you mean we struggle to obey, yes. Fair and correct. I took it as struggle to agree with. So I now presume you meant the first. My bad.

That's a fairly bold thing to say. It's also not true.

Hi anatess. Yes, your meaning and intent is clearer. Thanks. However we do disagree on a few points. Let me preamble that I'm not just trying to be contentious. Hopefully that comes across. I've tried to edit myself in a way so nothing comes across as hugely disrespectful, and I hope I've succeeded. If not, I apologize in advance. On to it: I do not agree that obvious extrapolations are non-doctrinal or should never be preached. Very many things are obvious extrapolations. We know many plain things that mean a whole lot of obvious other things that aren't explicitly said. The things they mean are clear in the primary doctrinal ideas. Decrying them as non-doctrinal is argumentative and not useful. Also, the interpretation of the couplet that it does not mean there is a God-the-Grandfather is extrapolation as well, and, frankly, a less obvious extrapolation. It's clearly stretching an obvious idea to something less obvious in order to suit some sense of a PC Christian p.o.v. The couplet means what it says. As you point out, "ANYTHING man is going through, God has gone through". So wherein, logically, does that not include having a father, brothers, sisters, etc...? As man is (mortal, part of an earthly family, part of a heavenly family, etc.) God once was. That's hardly an stretch. It is a literal statement. Making it non-literal, in my opinion, has the burden of proof. God was as we are. We have a Heavenly Father. So did God. He had to work out His salvation with fear and trembling the SAME as we. Inherent in that is a God, a Savior, an atonement, repentance, line-upon-line, etc.... You're interpreting that and diminishing it to suit a bias. (Once again, no disrespect intended.) That it means a mortal experience and all that comes with a mortal experience is the clear meaning. This is even more obvious if we extend our understanding based on the King Follet discourse. Whereas I'm sure you've read it I'm posting the link just in case others are interested in easy access here. I am not arguing that it's being on lds.org makes it "doctrinal". But it is certainly a trustworthy source to help us better understand this doctrine. So, fair enough, I admit God-the-Grandfather is extrapolation (though not my extrapolation, as explained later). I do not, however, accept the idea that believing other than what is clear and obvious extrapolation is acceptable. It's not okay to throw off obvious extrapolations that are inherent in a doctrine because of our discomfort with them. This is clear and obvious and we should believe it. The only way to argue that it is not clear and obvious is to twist meanings. ("That depends on what the definition of is is.") And I do not believe that when asked the question, "Does God have a father?" that the correct answer is "We don't know." We have revealed truth on the matter (even though it requires some simple and obvious extrapolation) and we do understand this, even though it's become popular among some to argue that we do not. Why is this a problem? What is it that makes us so squeamish about this? Is it just argumentative about any extrapolation? Or is it this specific idea that bugs people for some reason? Why? I'm honestly asking. I'm not arguing that all extrapolation is valid, or that even all seemingly obvious extrapolation is valid. Interpretations that conflict with known doctrine are clearly problematic even if they seem valid. This concept (grandfather-god) does not conflict with any known doctrine. It is offensive to no one except the overly sensitive who are bound to be offended anyhow, and frankly is a pretty neat idea. Understanding that God went through what we are only seems blasphemous if one's tradition has ingrained in them that it is blasphemous. Otherwise, it is an extremely comforting and beautiful idea. Son to Father, mortal to god, seed to tree, etc., etc. How cool is that!? Short of that traditional bias, it fairly fully rings of truth and right. Not to mention that it makes perfect sense. As to the other gods thing, we're talking past each other a bit. Abraham is another god that is not part of THIS Godhead (meaning he is not the Father, The Son, or the Holy Ghost). I take that as a clear example of other gods. Whereas it still clearly falls under the hierarchy of THIS godhead, that only contends more strongly for the ideas you're debating as non-doctrinal. If Abraham is a god, and we can become gods, then Abraham's children, upon the revealed truth to them that Abraham was once as they are, can safely extrapolate from that that we are out there somewhere as gods too, and that Abraham's father is still his God, and will be forever, glory upon glory, etc., etc. The fact that all revealed truth we have on it fits within THIS godhead does not hurt the understanding of other gods, it enhances it. As to where the extrapolation comes from, just to be clear, I didn't make this up. From Joseph Smith: "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it." Mostly I'm adding this quote so it's not coming across like I'm just reasoning this out and "extrapolating" on my own. Also, to show that such extrapolation isn't necessarily problematic. And I agree with Joseph. Why are we scared to death at such a doctrine?

They are big what ifs. However, equating gay sealings in the temple to allowing polygamy again doesn't work. One contradicts a myriad of other concrete doctrines. The other is canonized scripture. Regardless, the answer is the same. Follow the living prophet and current revealed truths. On the other hand, if church policy simply changed on such extreme matters without a concrete statement from the prophet it would be more difficult. This isn't likely to happen though, I think. If the leadership is unified on any given point then we should trust and follow. As long as throwing out what ifs. What if the quorum of the 12 split in two over one of the above issues, 7 or 8 of them broke off, declared one of them the prophet, and the church split in two over it. Who do you follow? :) The clear and obvious answer is get on your knees and pray like mad with all humility and listen to the spirit. Of course this applies to all of the above.

Gospel Principles

I was going to say something almost exactly the same.

Because of that blurry line, I think a statement as straightforward as "I don't think loving and accepting sinners puts as at odds with God's will" works. Obviously the "loving" part can be stated confidently. The "accepting" part is where it gets sticky. What does it mean to accept? How far does it go? Wherein does it cross the line to condoning and enabling? These are not simple answers and so a simple "accept sinners" is invalid, imo. When a kid starts hanging out with the druggy neighbor do we just look on the moment with pride in our hearts because they are loving and accepting the sinner? Or do we say, "Whoa...maybe you need to be more careful about who you hang out with?" I mean there's a clear balance there that needs to be struck. But it's not just "accept them because that's what Christ would do." That's a false interpretation of what Christ actually did. He did not just go hang out in the bathroom with the smoking kids while playing hooky, or go out on dangerous joy rides ignoring the law-breaking and foul language, etc., etc., as an example of how to love. These things are not love and acceptance, and not the example Christ set. There's a lot of justification to accept the sinner based on the theoretical example set by Christ, but it's a false reference. This idea that Christ hung out with prostitutes and sinners -- not really the case. Christ primarily hung out with his disciples. Sure, some of them were sinners prior to their discipleship (to be fair and literal, all of them were sinners, as all mankind are...but I'm specifically meaning grievous sinners). They were good and righteous people. When he did "hang" with sinners, it was to preach and uplift. They weren't just His buddies hangin' with him on a Saturday night, yo. I know I'm responding to much more than you actually said. I'm just expounding on my thoughts, not really trying to debate.

Right. I understand. I think the eternal doctrine philosophy as it relates to leaders stating a doctrine is eternal is a bit of a stretch is what I mean. I am only stating this as my opinion though, accepting that it is a possibility and an interesting thought. As to tying it back into the quote...well, that's the thread topic...so.... I will, for the fun of it, address your last sentence here. I agree, though perhaps not in the same way. I think the quote means what it says at the most simple level. We just, simply, do not have to worry about our prophet leading us astray. We can, and should, follow him without fear. And this goes for prophetic declarations as well as simple advice or counsel. Follow the prophet and do not fear. It's as simple as that.

Hmm. Interesting. Possible. A bit of a stretch imo. I think it's more likely and obvious that people tend to misunderstand what it meant by "astray". The church, in spite of corrected doctrines, is not astray (contrary to certain *cough*snuffer*cough* points of view). Even with practices that may or may not be 100% perfect and correct the church is not astray. The church and it's practices are not perfect. But God will not allow us to be lead astray if we follow the prophet. Fairly straight forward as I see it.

Unfortunately it is a very complicated thing. Unfortunately there is a possibility of acceptance literally condoning sin. It is not black-and-white, nor should reactions to specific situations every be blanket policy. Prayer, fasting, study, etc., are imperative in these things. To claim that everyone should always let their child's "S.O." into their home and family is just as wrong of an idea as that everyone should always NOT let their child's "S.O." into their home and family. Sometimes it may be a good idea, sometimes it may be a horrible idea. My concern, and where I might in some cases be guilty of coming across as judging people like you and your wife, is that I think the people of the Christian world, as influenced by politically correct lies, are turning more and more towards the blanket idea of always accepting. I need to be careful and not snap judge though. In principle, however, I can state that I do not feel this is an overriding principle that should guide our decisions (acceptance). Rather, what should guide our decisions is, as mentioned, prayer, fasting, etc., and following the spirit.

You're sort of responding to something other than what I had replied to you... So I'll address that first. You wrote of anything outside of THIS God. I gave scriptural references to another god and his kingdom that we know is true. That it hasn't been taught at the pulpit isn't relevant in any way. You can have your point-of-view, of course, on what can and cannot be taught in Gospel Doctrine. But I'm pretty sure using the scriptures is ok. Funky's post I've already responded to. Finally, assuming most of your reply is talking about whether we believe God was once a man or not, rather than responding to the actual quotes (you: anything outside THIS God... me: What about Abraham?) then you are actually mistaken. The "couplet" has been taught over the pulpit, is taught in our lesson manuals, and can clearly be repeated in Gospel Doctrine without fear of preaching false doctrine or personal opinion. Although this should be obvious, I'll source it so as to eliminate unnecessary back and forth: Over the pulpit: "Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop." President Spencer W. Kimball, In Conference, Apr 1977 Lesson Manual: “As man now is, God once was: “As God now is, man may be.” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011 Chapter 5

Since when is Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow's teachings "my word"? I didn't make this doctrine up. President Hinkley's sound-byte on a national news program is clearly a milk-before-meat response. Moreover, it does not say we don't believe it. It says we don't know much about it, which is true. But we still believe it. And saying it's a "couplet" actually has no bearing on the truth of it, which I expect Pres. Hinkley knew. He's correct. That is a couplet. Doesn't change whether it's a known principle or not. Why everyone takes a simple sound-byte like this, that doesn't actually say much of anything, and uses it to override known, clearly-taught doctrine is strange to me. Moreover, Pres. Hinkley later clarified that he knew our doctrine and that we shouldn't worry that he didn't just because of something said in a news program. See here. 2nd question. This is clearly taught and believed by the church, as is clearly found with nothing more than a simple search and cursory review on lds.org. Best, C

The answer seems to be in the question.

Debatable. There had to be a reason it was revealed. And all knowledge is, from a certain point of view, essential to our salvation. At what point in our existence is it necessary to know something, is more the question. Certainly as a new member it may not be necessary to have the answer. On the other hand, if a new member asks the question it behooves us to answer it with truth as has been revealed. Moreover, knowing God is life eternal. How can we know God if we don't understand his nature? One could as easily ask: Is the answer to the question, does God have a physical body, essential to our salvation. That certainly isn't important knowledge to faith, repentance, obedience, etc... And yet it's a core teaching point of the true church. Seems to me that to know God we should understand that He, like us, has a Father who loved Him and that He worked out His salvation through humility and obedience, the same as we must. If this is true (which it is) then I think we should know it.

Part of the problem lies in the redefinition of words and ideas to suit the pro-agenda. Ideas like tolerance being touted as a virtue. Tolerance is not a virtue. Tolerance just is. Good tolerance is good. Bad tolerance is bad. But now people speak of tolerance like it is, in and of its own accord, something good in all cases. When, in fact, intolerance is sometimes the virtue. The same can be said for the use and meaning of love, particularly in accordance with the homosexual agenda. Love has been twisted to mean something it never meant, and all sorts of other attributes (like tolerance, acceptance, kindness, etc,) have been tied into it's meaning that are not naturally inherent in it's meaning. The Christian world has somewhat bought into this deception and speaks and preaches with the world's take on these same terms, and it is detrimental to the cause. We cannot speak of tolerance as a virtue and then speak of intolerance in any regard, and yet, clearly, Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality -- as well it should be. And this is good. Likewise, we cannot speak of love and mean all these other things that love doesn't mean and then make a convincing argument that sustains long held Christian values and actions concerning homosexual behavior without undercutting our new sermons of love. To be more explicit in my meaning -- we can't use love in terms of the world and then talk about not accepting behavior, because the world has turned the meaning of love to include acceptance of behavior. We've shot ourselves in the foot somewhat by buying into these new definitions.

Um...I'm confused by what you're trying to mean here. We ARE agents unto ourselves. That's what our agency is.

jinc1019 - "Do Mormons Believe God Was Once a Man?" Yes! Do ALL Mormons believe this? Apparently not. But there's a lot of us. You can find "Mormons" who believe anything, and I mean ANYTHING. But in general, yes, this is a belief of Mormons. jinc1019 - "If God was once a man, who made God?" His Father. jinc1019 - "basic logic says there has to be a creator at the beginning of time" Maybe you need to re-examine the meaning of the words "basic logic". The very term "beginning of time" defies logic. anatess - "Anything outside of THIS God is non-canonical and are merely extrapolations. It may or may not be true." Not really. We know, scripturally, that Abraham has been exalted. We know scripturally that this means his seed will continue forever and that he reigns over them as their god. Whereas you are generally correct, you aren't literally correct. Moreover, it was Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets who taught this, so I'm not sure about the "be careful here" pov. How is it extrapolation to claim what prophets have taught is true? jinc1019 - "the teaching that the God, the one in the Bible, is not really the chief architect of all that is, was, and ever will be...This, however, is absolutely a biblical principle held by all Christians and Jews since the very beginning of the faith." If this is biblical, can you please source it, biblically speaking? Eowyn - (concerning:We believe Jesus followed the pattern of his Father, which was to have gone through a mortal experience,) "You believe that. Many other people believe that. But it's not core LDS doctrine." Yes it is core doctrine. But doctrine is not defined by what people believe. It is defined by what is taught, as revealed, by the prophets. This fits. HiJolly - "As God is now, man may become >> this is clearly taught in scripture. As man is now, God once was >> this is NOT clearly taught in scripture." The scriptures are not the only source of revealed truths. HiJollly - "Joseph's teaching on the subject does not rise to the level of Scripture" Why not? Who says? Moreover, what about the other prophets who taught the same? Why should we relegate their teachings to a "maybe" status? This belief does not just come from some obscure comment by Joseph Smith. That may be the original source, but others clearly taught the same. Is their prophetic voice of no value? Was Lorenzo Snow not a prophet. Was his teaching "VERY unclear"? HiJolly - "On a personal level, scripture is whatever the Holy Ghost attests to(this is found in the D&C). And that explains why we have so many personal viewpoints/ beliefs that don't agree with everyone else" This may be true-ish...sort of. But whatever anyone CLAIMS to be revealed to them is certainly NOT scripture. Blackmarch - "Either way God hasn't felt it important enough for us to know with surety." Since when is prophets teaching it to us considered not "with surety"?

However, if you don't spell the name correctly then the prayers for them don't work.

Respectfully, I can't agree with this (the first part, to be clear). Feelings are not a choice is contradictory to some pretty basic LDS doctrine. Moreover, what are we, 5-year-olds? "I can't help it. I'm just MAAAADDDD!!!!" :) We can, absolutely, choose how to feel. Denial of this is undermines the concept of being able to become like the Savior. It's fairly popular to equate animalistic, childish passions with self-worth and to equate our feelings to our value -- that we must accept who we are, we cannot change who we are, we have no control over who we are and what we "FEEL!!!!!!" Trendy, political correct points of view do not truth make. It would be more appropriate to say: Sometimes feelings are not a choice, but they can be controlled and altered, and many times we do, indeed, choose how to feel. Acting on feelings is always a choice.

It's an interesting thought, and as Vort stated, we can really only speculate with our own pet theories. The reality is that we don't know if ordinances are eternal law or not. We don't know why God requires baptism. From a logical view point, in many ways, it seems sort of arbitrary. I mean, sure, there is symbolism. But there are many, many other ways that could have been set that could be symbolic in other ways. So why immersion in water? Why this act as an absolute requirement to enter into the kingdom of God? We only have one answer that is doctrinal. Because God commanded it. We should not infer from that command that it is an eternal law. Nor should we infer that it is not an eternal law. We do as God commands. It is as simple as that. Whereas I can certainly see the logical validity behind the idea that God is bound by eternal laws (as in He cannot lie or He would cease to be God, etc...) we don't know why He is bound by them. We don't know that there is a higher power known as eternal law that He is accountable to. This is only presumption based on our mortal view, as that is how we see law. What we do know is that we can trust God without any shadow of doubt. That His word is law. That His promises are sure. That His commands are strict and His justice fair. We can trust this without reservation. This is wherein it is important to understand ideas like His never changing. We can trust that He won't change his mind and give up on mankind, or that He will change and not fulfill His promises. He will not turn away from perfect love and righteousness. He will not fail in His purposes. It has nothing to do with, as the naysayers like to argue, with policy and procedure.

There most certainly needs to be justification. But that is the purview of the prophets and apostles. We trust them because of the witness of the spirit to us that they are prophets and apostles and because we know the church is true and led by revelation. There does seem to be a bit of logical fallacy in the pervasive experience you've had. It should be commonly understood that ordinances should not be changed. Certainly not by us. But the idea that God cannot change ordinances through His prophets according to His will.... The logic does not reasonably follow to that conclusion.

Right on. The problem is in changing something without authority. It's not in that ordinances cannot change. They clearly and obviously can.

And in the cases of ordinances, they carry meaning only because God says that they do. :)

If the Catholic Church were indeed the true church, and God did indeed lead it by revelation, and had indeed revealed that baptism was to be performed by sprinkling, then there is no difference. The clear point is that the Catholic church is not the true church, God does not lead it by revelation, and the change to sprinkling was not given by revelation. That is the difference. Anyhow, where does the "are not to be changed" philosophy come from? Who says they're not to be changed? If God says so, specifically, then one would reasonably expect that He won't change them. Otherwise, wherein does this idea that ordinances are not meant to be changed come from?