I'm a confused investigator

[cooling]

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.

[Maureen]

Welcome cooling!

Might be easier if you post a couple of those questions.

M.

[cooling]

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?

[unixknight]

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.

Awesome avatar, Cooling.

So anything you read in the canon of Scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine & Covenants) is "official." Now, there may be different interpretations of some of what is in there, and the best way to resolve that sort of thing is through prayer and study. Generally speaking, what comes from the First Presidency is reliable, especially in terms of interpreting those scriptures.

[unixknight]

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.

I'd avoid using books that old. Over time, our understanding of the Gospel has improved and been refined. Better to go with the most current sources you can. (Scripture is, of course, always current )

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.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't come from the CK. There's a pre-existence but I don't think they're the same.

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.

I dunno about that... The literature I've read seems consistent with that. What have you read?

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.

Doesn't make sense to me either, I don't know who'd say that because:

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.

You understand correctly.

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?

I think maybe what is happening here is the source you refer to is not technically doctrine since it's derived from Scripture through someone else's understanding.

The thing to keep in mind though, is you're talking about some pretty advanced stuff, and a lot of the way the Church goes about teaching is by the "milk before meat" principle. What it means is that you need to learn and understand the basics before moving on to bigger and more advanced concepts.

[Guest gopecon]

The scriptures are good official sources of doctrine, but the interpretations can often vary (how many churches are derived from the Bible). As unixknight said, our understandings of somethings improve over time. For the most part (I can't think of any specific exceptions), current materials that have the Church logo on them are a very reliable source of true teaching and doctrine. I look at the logo as the seal of approval from at least some brethren that have been called and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Anything that the Church sells via the online store at lds.org (lesson manuals, Preach My Gospel, the missionary library, etc.) is a good source for reliable information.

[cooling]

The thing to keep in mind though, is you're talking about some pretty advanced stuff, and a lot of the way the Church goes about teaching is by the "milk before meat" principle. What it means is that you need to learn and understand the basics before moving on to bigger and more advanced concepts.

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.

[unixknight]

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.

Seems weird that they'd say that to you, but then, we don't know who that was. Your best bet at this stage would be to talk to Missionaries. They're given training in helping investigators get started.

When I first started investigating the Church I was coming from a Catholic background and I was much more interested in the deep, advanced, meatier stuff. We're talking Grade A steak doctrine here. The Missionaries aren't really supposed to go into THAT, but I did have to learn to be patient and trust.

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.

Just remember that we're all humans and we don't always get it right. That's why prayer is so important. The Holy Spirit can help you figure out what the truth is in cases like that.

[MsMagnolia]

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.

Just as in any other religion there are people who do not understand the doctrines. A doctrine is an eternal truth. Since truth does not change, doctrines do not change. A principle is what we, as mortals and children of God, are expected to do with the doctrine. It sounds like you have a good grasp of the doctrine that we may become like our Heavenly parents. Our father in heaven will always be our father and our God. We are his children and just like a child, we can grow to become like him.

hope this helps.

Mags

[Suzie]

The Church back in 2007 through the Church Newsroom wrote an article about what exactly entitles Church doctrine, I hope you find it useful.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

[cooling]

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.

[applepansy]

CK? I don't know what that stands for.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored to the earth by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They appeared to Joseph Smith.

This is one sticking point for many investigators.

[Suzie]

CK? I don't know what that stands for

Celestial Kingdom.

[cooling]

CK? I don't know what that stands for.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored to the earth by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They appeared to Joseph Smith.

This is one sticking point for many investigators.

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

[Suzie]

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.

One of my personal favorite topics on Church history discussed at length here, please read it all if you get a chance and feel free to share your views:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

[cooling]

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.

[cooling]

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?

[Suzie]

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?

Well, if you want to get a grasp on the topic I recommend that thread, maybe when you have time you can read it all. You can also check people like Margaret Young and Darius Gray online who covered the topic in many ways, even in film.

About the other part of your post, every counsel I hear or receive, even from the Prophet himself I pray about for confirmation, it is vital as a Latter Day Saint. I don't believe in following without this confirmation. Often times, we hear that the Prophets cannot lead us astray but what exactly that entitles? It has been discussed here many times. IMO, it means the Prophet may not lead us away from those basic principles of the Gospel that will allow us to return back to Heavenly Father. It does not mean every word they speak is doctrine.

[unixknight]

Well... The chatters on the mormon site are missionaries. That's why it bothered me that he denied the teaching so much.

Yikes, that would bug me too. Maybe you're right in that he thought he was somehow shielding you from stuff you weren't ready for? I dunno. I agree it was the wrong approach though. We're all human...

I appreciate your explanations :) If you're up for it here are a few more things I'm confused about.

Certainly!

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.

That's a really good question, and I think it really has more to do with the idea that without going to the Celestial Kingdom, there's no room for eternal growth and new spirit children, etc. With a ceiling like that, it's hard to imagine being in a stagnant family structure forever. Maybe that's the reason for the limit? I dunno but it certainly sounds like a question worth researching and studying.

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.

I think you'll find the attitude on this varies regionally. Around here (Washington, DC area) a lot of the LDS wives work outside the home as well (including mine). There's no hard rules on this one, it's one of those things that's left to your own prayer and judgement. Yes, the attitude is that ideally the mom would be the caregiver at home but the reality of this day and age leaves little room for it.

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.

I know Brigham Young had racist views but I'm not aware of him ever supporting the killing of biracial couples. Actually, the whole blacks/priesthood issue is a tough one but I was very encouraged to learn that Joseph Smith actually performed ordinations on some black members of the early church, so Brigham Young seems to have dropped the ball on that one in a big way.

I learned a lot of really good info and commentary from this site: Black LDS Mormons

They can answer this item WAY better than I can.

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.

Join the club

Edited August 3, 2011 by skippy740
finished the "quote"

[applepansy]

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

Many people don't believe that God and Christ would appear to a 14-yo farm boy. They get stuck on that on point.

[applepansy]

Celestial Kingdom.

Thank you Suzie. What confused me was that we didn't leave the Celestial Kingdom to come to this earth. *sigh*

I think I'm going to bow out of this one.

[cooling]

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?

[cooling]

Many people don't believe that God and Christ would appear to a 14-yo farm boy. They get stuck on that on point.

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?

[unixknight]

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?

I don't know about the dark skin = less valiant. I've heard of that idea before but I'm not well versed enough to comment on it but hopefully the site I gave you the link to will help with that.

I don't think God was the reason for the priest hood to not be given to blacks. I truly believe Brigham Young just boogered that one up. I think Brigham Young was the leader the Church needed at the time, because of the fleeing West business and getting SLC set up. His talents in these areas made him the right choice at the time. The problem is I think he started making changed that were beyond the scope of what the Lord wanted of him.

The problem is that it took a LONG time to fix it because in more recent LDS times, it takes a LOT of prayer, revelation, and the involvement of the Quorum of 12 to implement big changes like that. That means change comes slowly. (Probably precisely because of the earlier mistakes. Ironic, huh?)

[Guest gopecon]

"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?"

No, official doctrine does not say that darker skinned people were less valiant in their premortal life. There was speculation about that prior to 1978, but that is NOT doctrine. When the revelation on the priesthood was revealed, prior assumptions that were made were essentially thrown out. There is no reason to suppose that a black person in today's church was any less faithful in premortality than the fair skinned person next to him. As far as the reason for the change, it was taught that someday the priesthood would be available to everyone. In 1978 Pres. Kimball was told that the time was right to do it. I don't know, and I don't think anyone can really know why it happened exactly when it did, other than the time was right and God told his prophet to move the policy forward.