LDS Faith Monotheistic?

[Hemidakota]

If Heavenly Father went through a mortality, He of necessity has a Heavenly Father of His own, which He would, in fact, worship, because we never cease worshiping our God.

.

If one did view the past pre-mortal life and know GOD personally, they would agree with your statement.

[pam]

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.

That is one of the frustrating things I find as a life long member myself. Unfortunately I don't have a black and white answer for you. Actually I don't even have a grey answer for you.

[lattelady]

Thankyou, Pam for being honest with me.

[Hemidakota]

Man...no laugh button.

[wildbean98]

We are monotheistic. In our reality, in our universe, in our everything there is only one God. Hindus believe there are multiple Gods in our universe and they can pick and choose which to worship which makes them polytheistic. We do not have any option but to worship our one Heavenly Father. We do not get multiple Gods to choose from.

[lattelady]

Hemidakota,what was the laugh for?

[Generally_Me]

The only answer I have is, search the scriptures, pay attention in general conference, read the Ensign and books written by the general authorities (past and present)...THINK on what you read, pray about it...and have faith that personal revelation will tell you what you need to know.

Then again, I don't give a rat's tail if someone wears a yellow shirt to church.

AFter reading the back and forth I am not going to publicly declare what I have been taught and what I believe, because...well, I am not a prophet of the church, and I think the answer is available to anyone who studies and has faith.

Lattelady, I must say I am impressed with your knowledge of the LDS scriptures. And I hope you don't judge ALL LDS for what goes on, on this site. Our meetings in person are usually very quiet, compared to this. There is something about being anonymous that makes people bold. Which may or may not be a good thing.

[Guest Believer_1829]

We are monotheistic. In our reality, in our universe, in our everything there is only one God. Hindus believe there are multiple Gods in our universe and they can pick and choose which to worship which makes them polytheistic. We do not have any option but to worship our one Heavenly Father. We do not get multiple Gods to choose from.

Actually, Hinduism is widely misunderstood. All the 'gods' of Hinduism are just different manifestation of the one God, Vishnu. They choose which manifestation of God to worship.

[lattelady]

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.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Speaking of LDS defensiveness:

Apostle Urges Mormons to Speak Up, Avoid Defensiveness - LDS Newsroom

Among the reasons for this type of reaction is the long history of persecution that Mormons faced during the early days of the Church, which included an extermination order from the governor of Missouri in the 19th century.

“That is now an indelible part of history. You have heard the stories of hardship and sacrifice since you were a small child. And yet this isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore. Could part of the defensiveness that others sometimes see in us suggest that we still expect to be treated as a disliked minority, forced to flee to the West?”

Edited August 20, 2009 by Believer_1829

[john doe]

Yet technically why would we not be bound to accept the Articles of Faith. They are statements of our beliefs.

Because Articles of Faith, the book by James Talmage is different from The Articles of Faith found at the back of the Pearl of Great Price. The former is not doctrine, but the latter is.

[john doe]

There are many gospel truths out there that are not official doctrine. They are not binding on us as members of the church until they are declared doctrine.

[lattelady]

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.

[john doe]

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.

Good question. Why did Moses destroy the original Commandments when he came down from Sinai? Because he saw that the people could not live by them. So God gave him the second set of Commandments which were easier for the people to live by. If the people had been given the first set of Commandments, they would have lived under the condemnation of not being able to live by them. Instead, they were given a lower law. Then Christ gave us a New Law when He lived on earth. We have had 2,000 years to soak those in, and most of us still don't live by them. If all God's truths were to be revealed as doctrine, we would be on the hook for being obedient to those truths. We, as Natural Men, are not able to live by all of God's laws and truths at this time.

[pam]

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.

Lattelady, I too live in Utah but did not grow up here. I have heard comments made by other members about not allowing their children to go to parties put on by people who are not LDS. I can honestly say I am not like that. I have little tolerance for those that are that narrow minded. Not all members are like that thank goodness. I do hope you understand that you can't judge all members by a few narrow minded ones.

Okay now that this has gone off the subject...back to the topic. :)

[lattelady]

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)

[desirexnoel]

Yet technically why would we not be bound to accept the Articles of Faith. They are statements of our beliefs.

I am confused... So the articles of faith are actually not what all LDS believe? They are just speculation and really LDS varies in their beliefs?

[Justice]

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.

Part of the reason why I think they are not declared and binding is that many of them might be a stumbling block, and would prevent a person from learning in a certain order. If some things are placed before others it just leads to confusion. We should learn what we are ready to know.

[pam]

That's not what I said. I just asked if technically we shouldn't be bound to the Articles of Faith as that is so much what the LDS religion is based on. The Articles of Faith are statesments of our faith.

[Justice]

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)

I'd like you to show me where it says the first and second sets were the same.

[lattelady]

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?

[pam]

(12-24) Exodus 34:1–4 . Did Both Sets of Tablets Contain the Same Material?

Before this question can be fully answered, one must carefully examine what was on the first plates. One Bible scholar offered this analysis:

“‘The following is a general view of this subject. In [ Exodus 20 ] the ten commandments are given; and at the same time various political and ecclesiastical statutes, which are detailed in chapters [ 21–23 ]. To receive these, Moses had drawn near unto the thick darkness where God was, [ 20:21 ], and having received them he came again with them to the people, according to their request before expressed, ver. 19 : Speak thou with us —but let not the Lord speak with us, lest we die, for they had been terrified by the manner in which God had uttered the ten commandments; see ver. 18 . After this Moses, with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and the seventy elders, went up to the mountain; and on his return he announced all these laws unto the people, [ 24:1 ], &c., and they promised obedience. Still there is no word of the tables of stone. Then he wrote all in a book, [ 24:4 ], which was called the book of the covenant, ver. 7 . After this there was a second going up of Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders, [ 24:9 ], when that glorious discovery of God mentioned in verses 10 and 11 of the same chapter took place. After their coming down Moses is again commanded to go up; and God promises to give him tables of stone, containing a law and precepts, ver. 12 . This is the first place these tables of stone are mentioned; and thus it appears that the ten commandments, and several other precepts, were given to and accepted by the people, and the covenant sacrifice offered, [ 24:5 ], before the tables of stone were either written or mentioned.’ It is very likely that the commandments, laws, &c., were first published by the Lord in the hearing of the people; repeated afterwards by Moses; and the ten words or commandments, containing the sum and substance of the whole, afterwards written on the first tables of stone, to be kept for a record in the ark.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 1:474.)

This analysis would answer a frequently asked question, How did the Lord put the whole law of Moses on two tablets? The tablets, it seems, contained only the divine summary called the Ten Commandments. Joseph Smith added additional information when he reworked the first two verses of this chapter:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.

“But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.” ( JST, Exodus 34:1–2 .)

At first reading, this passage may sound contradictory. The Lord says He will write on the second tablets “according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest” ( v. 1 ) but then He says, “but it shall not be according to the first” ( v. 1 ; emphasis added). The problem lies in determining what “it” refers to: the writing on the tablets, or the new order of things introduced because of the rebellion of Israel. The information following the “it” seems to refer to the new order and not the new writings. But the Joseph Smith Translation of Deuteronomy 10:2 makes it clear that the two sets of plates contained the same thing, with one exception:

“And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou brakest, save the words of the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood, and thou shalt put them in the ark” ( JST, Deuteronomy 10:2 ; emphasis added).

[desirexnoel]

I randomly picked something from the D&C. I just clicked on section 25

1 Hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God, while I speak unto you, Emma Smith, my daughter; for verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdom.

Do you see how this verse is written in the voice of God. not the opinion of Joseph Smith. Just go to Doctrine and Covenants and browse a bit, and you will find many examples of this style.

“President [Joseph] Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit ... it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and to go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nighDDeven fifty-six years should wind up the scene” (History of the Church 2:182). This statement was made in February of 1835.

I provided the second one for you. Can you point out the differences?

[desirexnoel]

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).

I thought they only needed to speak the name of the Lord. I didn't realize that there was any more to it... :S

[HiJolly]

No. You obviously have not read many of Joseph Smith's revelations. There is a distinctive style to a prophecy which is missing from mere sermons.

I disagree, bytebear, FWIW. And further, I don't care whether someone uses "Thus sayeth the Lord" in their comments. I think it's WAY too simplistic to use that as proof or even indication of anything.

HiJolly