Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Hemidakota]

Hi again Hemi,

The answer prophet BY gives on this is also clear to me, BY claims Adam and God are one in the same.:confused:

That was not the case President Young was revealing. According to President Young, both Adam and Eve were born of immortal parents and brought to this earth. Both are literal decedents of the Heavenly Parents. The Savior on the other hand was born of an immortal FATHER and mortal mother. Being the only begotten of the mortal flesh. Adam and Eve were not. This means both are Sons/daughter of GOD.

You will need the Holy Ghost to help aid you on this given personal insight.

[Hemidakota]

Hi Hemi,

Would a sermon given from the pulpit speaking as a prophet be considered doctrine ( teaching)??? I would certainly think so. King Follet sermon given by JS from the pulpit cleary teaches ( doctrine ) that " God himself was once as we are now, an exalted man "

" I will take away the veil so you all can see God once lived as man on an earth "

" You must learn how to become Gods yourself " and so on and so on.

This is why I am so confused as to why the LDS members offer things like " speculation" or Prophets not really speaking as prophets, or not really an official teaching of the LDS.

What can possibly be more official teaching than the First prophet JS giving a semon on the matter????

GOd bless,

Carl

Exactly...all it takes for anyone who still doubt this is to seek the Spirit for an anwser.

[Guest ceeboo]

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine.

That is certainly what I would have thought.

[jazzy225]

Hi Fiona,

About godhood: I tend to believe that this means primarily becoming like God in terms of character traits.

DH

DH,

In Blessings of Exaltation (Gospel Principles), chap 47, number 2. Read slowly and then explain to the forum the difference between the next two statements.

"I tend to believe that this means primarily becoming like God ".

"They will become gods".

This is why Fiona is doubting. Isn't this the core (deep) doctrine the root of your beliefs? Isn't this the meat you are talking about?

Lets see we are encouraged not to discuss it here, and the anti sites are out of the question. I guess, it is something that can't be mentioned in this forum, according to some members. :huh:

Where can this be mentioned? It isn't taught according to members, yet, the gospel principles state it is used as a teaching manual. :confused:

[Hemidakota]

There topics that President Young taught that may not be in total content when he gave it that may require pondering and aid by the Spirit for added truths.

Something to think about, intelligence cannot be created by GOD, then who created it? Even the materials that are used to fashion and form worlds, spirit bodies, mortal flesh, and so on, cannot be created by GOD, then who did? President Young spoke briefly on this subject, so did Joseph Smith but not adding any further clarity.

[Misshalfway]

Exactly...all it takes for anyone who still doubt this is to seek the Spirit for an anwser.

YES! Absolutely. Just because Joseph said it does not mean that all understand completely or draw the correct conclusions or understand the proper contexts or no when to stop making conclusions and just say "I don't know."

[HiJolly]

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine. Anyone else who wants to say different, I would caution them to seek out the Holy Ghost for a confirmation then deny what was given by him.

There are doctrine and principles that Joseph could not give to the Saints due to their spiritual immaturity. This comes by personal revelation for your own spiritual edification.

Oh, Hemi. I totally agree with your second paragraph, but your first shows what I have found to be trouble RE: doctrine.

As a mystic, I have had plenty of time to ponder the difference between the personal and the institutional aspects of our faith. And there ARE differences. For example, doctrine as an institutional concept. Doctrine is not all truth, it is the truth that is accepted by the institutional Church as 'official'. Thus, the limitation the Church has placed upon doctrine is that it must be in the four standard works, the declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency, and the Articles of Faith. That's IT. Nothing else. Not Conference talks, no Ensign articles, etc. (see lds.org Commentary, May 2007)

That doesn't mean that Joseph's King Follett sermon is not true, far from it. It just means that the concepts taught there are not institutionalized as the proclaimed Gospel and doctrine of the Church. I'll grant that over the years this line has been blurred, but I see the Church now taking steps to try and clarify this, and limit what 'doctrine' is. I think its a VERY good thing.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Remember, Joseph was a simple man and not being bullied by academic pressures of the day. LOL

[HiJolly]

This is why I am so confused as to why the LDS members offer things like " speculation" or Prophets not really speaking as prophets, or not really an official teaching of the LDS.

What can possibly be more official teaching than the First prophet JS giving a semon on the matter????

It's because we are ALL prophets, Ceeboo. The Church has a somewhat anarchical (is that a word?) approach to truth, revelation, visions, and so forth. We want ALL people to be prophets of the Lord, if possible.

The practical results are somewhat confusing, though, and so the Church says, "you can believe anything you want, but in Church, try to limit yourselves to doctrines of the Church". Thus the Church has no sin of heresy. You can think literally ANYTHING and still be a member in good standing.

See my post to Hemi for more info along these lines.

HiJolly

Edited September 3, 2008 by HiJolly

[MobyMule]

There topics that President Young taught that may not be in total content when he gave it that may require pondering and aid by the Spirit for added truths.

Something to think about, intelligence cannot be created by GOD, then who created it? Even the materials that are used to fashion and form worlds, spirit bodies, mortal flesh, and so on, cannot be created by GOD, then who did? President Young spoke briefly on this subject, so did Joseph Smith but not adding any further clarity.

These are the things that are very hard to even comprehend much less understand with our mortal understanding of how we think God operates or how the universe operates. I find that President Young went over many peoples understanding and spiritual readiness in these ideas and doctrines he presented. Most people don't like the details they like things to stay a mystery.

[MobyMule]

DH,

In Blessings of Exaltation (Gospel Principles), chap 47, number 2. Read slowly and then explain to the forum the difference between the next two statements.

"I tend to believe that this means primarily becoming like God ".

"They will become gods".

This is why Fiona is doubting. Isn't this the core (deep) doctrine the root of your beliefs? Isn't this the meat you are talking about?

Lets see we are encouraged not to discuss it here, and the anti sites are out of the question. I guess, it is something that can't be mentioned in this forum, according to some members. :huh:

Where can this be mentioned? It isn't taught according to members, yet, the gospel principles state it is used as a teaching manual. :confused:

Well people like to put their own understanding of what a god is on it. Will any of the people on this earth supplant Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ? No. Will we be Joint-Heirs with Christ? Yes. The details of how it works we don't know. But we know that God will grant his faithful children with all that he has. What does that mean exactly? Well we believe we have more detail than others.

[justamere10]

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine. Anyone else who wants to say different, I would caution them to seek out the Holy Ghost for a confirmation then deny what was given by him.

There are doctrine and principles that Joseph could not give to the Saints due to their spiritual immaturity. This comes by personal revelation for your own spiritual edification.

I'm sure you are assuming that we have a correct version of what Joseph Smith taught as doctrine and principles. My understanding is that scribes in those days often wrote as if they were the person they were writing for and sometimes wrote sometime later from memory (and memory possibly corrupted by their own interpretations/understandings and maybe even that of others they discussed it with.)

There is also the matter of prophets being human and fallible, and not always speaking for God.

As members of the LDS Church I think we should only be held accountable for that which is in our canon and official statements from the First Presidency.

[jazzy225]

Becoming like God......and becoming God himself are two different ideas. The scriptures use the term "gods" with a little g. It seems to me there is a great disparity in our human ability to comprehend what this means. It hasn't been revealed completely and isn't taught as doctrine. It lies in the realms of intelligent speculation. You yourself, traveler, make some assumptions that seem to feel right to you. But they are not church doctrine and shouldn't be presented as such. That is my only point.

"Do I believe we teach eternal progression? Yes. Do I believe that godhood in some form is attainable? Yes. Have I said we don't teach the concept? No. "

Miss half way,

I have left in bold two statements that clash from you. Here are two exact quotes on this subject. Plz explain why your answers are not consistent.

And Yes, I have read your posts and you are not consistent. Yes, you do teach that you can become a god, because the gospel principles are used as a teaching manual...../personal study, which implies doctrine. Why bring it up/teach it, if it is not doctrine.

[candyprpl]

I know that many don't like the term, 'milk before meat,' and some seem to think the Church is hiding or being secretive with some teachings. And when reading this a thought came to my mind.....if I were able to sit down with Pres. Monson or any of the prophets, even Joseph, and asked them to teach me all they know, I would be so overwhelmed and I'm sure my understanding would be anything but perfect.

When I first joined the Church and started learning the gospel, I did find it a little overwhelming and it scared me. Not enough to send me running, but......

Just reading some of the teachings from the latter-day prophets I can see that they have an understanding of God's attributes that I'm only now beginning to have a little understanding of. I don't have a problem with knowing that there are others who have a better spiritual understanding of God's workings. It doesn't take book learning, it takes learning from the heart and that is harder to come by than just picking up a book and studying words.:)

I know ---- that's just my opinion^_^

[Misshalfway]

Miss half way,

I have left in bold two statements that clash from you. Here are two exact quotes on this subject. Plz explain why your answers are not consistent.

And Yes, I have read your posts and you are not consistent. Yes, you do teach that you can become a god, because the gospel principles are used as a teaching manual...../personal study, which implies doctrine. Why bring it up/teach it, if it is not doctrine.

I wasn't referring to the whole concept of godhood or eternal progression. I did try to explain myself on many other posts. Perhaps you could look at more than just these two lines to understand my meanings.

I was referring to a quote by president Hinkley where he explained that we don't know enough about this subject. I believe others have posted the quote somewhere. But it would take me a minute to find it.

And I don't think I said anything about not discussing it. It is a fascinating topic and fills my mind with the exciting and humbling possibilities. I just think that wisdom might be a blessed addition to such conversations.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Misshalfway

[justamere10]

Well people like to put their own understanding of what a god is on it. Will any of the people on this earth supplant Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ? No. Will we be Joint-Heirs with Christ? Yes. The details of how it works we don't know. But we know that God will grant his faithful children with all that he has. What does that mean exactly? Well we believe we have more detail than others.

Everyone is unique of course but for me understanding the concepts recently discussed in this thread is really quite simple. God is God only to His own spirit children! A God is a Heavenly Parent.

Heavenly Father is not a dictator or whatever anymore than earthly parents are (or should be) to their own children. He is our FATHER and always will be the one and only natural Father of our spirit bodies.

Why shouldn't at least some of His children 'grow up' and become like Him? He would then become those children's Grandfather and be edified and glorified through their works and their children in turn, similar to grandparents being proud of their grandchildren.

It's not hard to get a grasp of the matter if we come to a complete awareness that God, the universe and everything is just a family affair. Everything tangible is designed to help teach God's children to make right choices, grow up, and become like Him. We've forgotten for our turn on earth, but things like creating planets perhaps used to be like building houses on earth, not so difficult if you study up on how to do it and have the tools, materials and permissions needed.

In our mortal role as fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, we are approximating as closely as possible the true order of Heaven, practicing for the real thing. That is why sexual sin outside of the bounds God has instructed is so abominable to Him.

Not all of God's children are going to 'grow up' and become like Him anymore than all of the children of the president of a corporation are going to grow up and be qualified to take over the corporation, even though he might wish they would. It's a matter of personal choices...

That's how I see it, that's what I am comfortable with, that understanding may not be for everyone.

[Hemidakota]

I'm sure you are assuming that we have a correct version of what Joseph Smith taught as doctrine and principles. My understanding is that scribes in those days often wrote as if they were the person they were writing for and sometimes wrote sometime later from memory (and memory possibly corrupted by their own interpretations/understandings and maybe even that of others they discussed it with.)

There is also the matter of prophets being human and fallible, and not always speaking for God.

As members of the LDS Church I think we should only be held accountable for that which is in our canon and official statements from the First Presidency.

Each case was different for any given scribe. Even Joseph's own first vision was not written for years afterward and made several revisions. Even my own conversion had revisons. This is no surprise.

There is more than being accountable to just official statements from the church. You still have to account for any given truths from the Godhead directly, the Holy Ghost, or ministering spirits.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

Becoming like God......and becoming God himself are two different ideas. The scriptures use the term "gods" with a little g. It seems to me there is a great disparity in our human ability to comprehend what this means. It hasn't been revealed completely and isn't taught as doctrine. It lies in the realms of intelligent speculation. You yourself, traveler, make some assumptions that seem to feel right to you. But they are not church doctrine and shouldn't be presented as such. That is my only point.

"Do I believe we teach eternal progression? Yes. Do I believe that godhood in some form is attainable? Yes. Have I said we don't teach the concept? No. "

Miss half way,

I have left in bold two statements that clash from you. Here are two exact quotes on this subject. Plz explain why your answers are not consistent.

And Yes, I have read your posts and you are not consistent. Yes, you do teach that you can become a god, because the gospel principles are used as a teaching manual...../personal study, which implies doctrine. Why bring it up/teach it, if it is not doctrine.

We don't teach all the truth as doctrine, in the Church. The Church focuses on those truths that will save, exalt and eventually glorify man. So, doctrine is a subset of truths, and Miss halfway did not contradict herself.

HiJolly

Edited September 3, 2008 by HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

These are the things that are very hard to even comprehend much less understand with our mortal understanding of how we think God operates or how the universe operates. I find that President Young went over many peoples understanding and spiritual readiness in these ideas and doctrines he presented. Most people don't like the details they like things to stay a mystery.

I would have to agree if we want to limit our own edification then it would be hard to comprehend anything that is given.

[HiJolly]

There is more than being accountable to just official statements from the church. You still have to account for any given truths from the Godhead directly, the Holy Ghost, or ministering spirits.

So true. Spoken like a true mystic!

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

To All,

In regards to the last several posts and directly because It was and never is my intention to " force people in an uncomfortable spot " I will simply offer a few statements as thanks for the obviously very challenging topics.

1. I love you all :)

2. I am probably more confused now than I was yesterday regarding LDS prophets , the LDS doctrine and indeed the LDS " official teachings ".

3. I will intentionaly " back off " and maybe play the question game for a while :)

4. :confused::confused:

God bless and thanks for all you have shared.

Carl

[justamere10]

Each case was different for any given scribe. Even Joseph's own first vision was not written for years afterward and made several revisions. Even my own conversion had revisons. This is no surprise.

There is more than being accountable to just official statements from the church. You still have to account for any given truths from the Godhead directly, the Holy Ghost, or ministering spirits.

By "accountable" I meant responsible for in the judgment of others.

With respect, I think that we are more likely to be judged by the laws we are aware of on earth than by any other deeper doctrine or understanding taught to us directly by God. But of course I may be wrong, that's up to Him. It just seems more just that we would be judged by our obedience or lack of obedience to those things we bring into our limited mortal awareness. Even great revelations from God must then be filtered through our physical faculties prior to it becoming part of our mortal awareness and understanding.

[Hemidakota]

So true. Spoken like a true mystic!

HiJolly

We have many here....

[Misshalfway]

Oh, Hemi. I totally agree with your second paragraph, but your first shows what I have found to be trouble RE: doctrine.

As a mystic, I have had plenty of time to ponder the difference between the personal and the institutional aspects of our faith. And there ARE differences. For example, doctrine as an institutional concept. Doctrine is not all truth, it is the truth that is accepted by the institutional Church as 'official'. Thus, the limitation the Church has placed upon doctrine is that it must be in the four standard works, the declarations and proclamations of the First Presidency, and the Articles of Faith. That's IT. Nothing else. Not Conference talks, no Ensign articles, etc. (see lds.org Commentary, May 2007)

That doesn't mean that Joseph's King Follett sermon is not true, far from it. It just means that the concepts taught there are not institutionalized as the proclaimed Gospel and doctrine of the Church. I'll grant that over the years this line has been blurred, but I see the Church now taking steps to try and clarify this, and limit what 'doctrine' is. I think its a VERY good thing.

HiJolly

Again, Hijolley. You have said what I have been trying to say....but you say it so much better.

Maybe I should just follow you around and say "YEAH! What he said!"

[Hemidakota]

To All,

In regards to the last several posts and directly because It was and never is my intention to " force people in an uncomfortable spot " I will simply offer a few statements as thanks for the obviously very challenging topics.

1. I love you all :)

2. I am probably more confused now than I was yesterday regarding LDS prophets , the LDS doctrine and indeed the LDS " official teachings ".

3. I will intentionaly " back off " and maybe play the question game for a while :)

4. :confused::confused:

God bless and thanks for all you have shared.

Carl

Carl...continue on being yourself in questioning those topics. I for one, do read your postings. :)