General Questions for Mormons...

[Vort]

Your statement is well in line with what Christians believe, but not what Mormons believe.

I am entertained to see a Catholic lecture a list full of Mormons on what they (the Mormons) believe.

And here I thought I believed, you know, what I believe. Glad you're here to set me straight.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I am entertained to see a Catholic lecture a list full of Mormons on what they (the Mormons) believe.

And here I thought I believed, you know, what I believe. Glad you're here to set me straight.

It is odd isn't it? And I get irritated too when people lecture me on what Catholics believe. I can't testify as to what you believe, but I do know that the LDS church has never categorically rejected this teaching of Joseph Smith, so by default, that belief is still intact. What I think happens is that Mormons get converts from Catholic and evangelical denominations who still hold to certain beliefs they were brought up with and can't imagine that the LDS teaches differently. This is something I gleaned from Mama's Girl's post. Your humorous retort (and yes, I am smiling with you) does not do away with the fact that Joseph Smith taught some outlandish things. And he couldn't be more clear on the issue of progressive godhood.

[Mamas_Girl]

Your statement is well in line with what Christians believe, but not what Mormons believe.

Sorry Saintmichaeldefendthem that's LDS belief. I'll quote from the church's webpage God, Godhead :

God the Father

It is generally the Father, or Elohim, who is referred to by the title God. He is called the Father because he is the father of our spirits (Mal. 2:10; Num. 16:22; 27:16; Matt. 6:9; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9). God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is all powerful (Gen. 18:14; Alma 26:35; D&C 19:1–3), all knowing (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24), and everywhere present through his Spirit (Ps. 139:7–12; D&C 88:7–13, 41).

Our Sunday School manual "Gospel Principles" on page 6 states that

God is perfect. He is a God of righteousness, with attributes such as love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. he is full of goodness.

And finally, I might as well add this in here, just found this on the internet...

“And when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed, Well hath the wise man said it is a fool that saith in his heart there is no God [see Psalm 53:1]. My heart exclaimed, All these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipresent power, a Being who maketh laws and decreeth and bindeth all things in their bounds, who filleth eternity, who was and is and will be from all eternity to eternity. And when I considered all these things and that that Being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth [see John 4:23], therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”

Nope, I pretty much know what my church teaches.

[Mamas_Girl]

I can't testify as to what you believe, but I do know that the LDS church has never categorically rejected this teaching of Joseph Smith, so by default, that belief is still intact.

What teaching of President Smith are you referring to, there were so many.

[john doe]

Your statement is well in line with what Christians believe, but not what Mormons believe. Unfortunately Bytor is engaged in the impossible task of making Joseph Smith's words go away. No matter how it's flowered up, the belief entails God in a diminished state eventually attaining the state he is in today. First to the fact that God, existing outside of time, cannot be subject to the laws of sequence. If time and sequence govern God, then God is not omnipotent. If God were once a mortal man then God is not omnipresent. And if God had to progress in knowledge then he is not omnicient. And finally, if God's plan progresses and is not predetermined from the foundation of the world, then God is not sovereign.

Care to back up your assertion using LDS-recognized doctrinal sources?

[Guest]

SaintMichael...

Let me explain this to you in a "Catholic" perspective so you can kinda understand what the Mormons are trying to tell you.

1.) Mormons do not believe in the infallability of Prophets like Catholics do with their Popes. Therefore, a Mormon Prophet can make commentary on doctrinal matters as a Man and not as a Prophet - when in a situation that does not require the Prophetic Keys. You will know that it is spoken as a man because the discourse is not addressed to the congregation and not vetted into scripture. Therefore, if a Prophet is invited to speak at a funeral, he need not speak as a Prophet - he can speak as a man, a friend of the deceased, and make non-prophetic discourses.

2.) The journal of discourses where you retrieved the "God was once Man" commentary is a compilation of non-prophetic discourses. Basically, they are discourses that were made by Prophets/Apostles that were not intended to be doctrinal. Some aligned perfectly with doctrine, others are merely theological suppositions and may not be doctrinal. The specific discourse you quoted was made by Joseph Smith at King Follet's funeral. He was speaking as a friend of the deceased. The discourse was a theological supposition - a hypothesis.

You can consider the situation similar to Saint Augustine's teaching on "limbo" where infants who die before baptism are not graced with the beatific vision. For somebody who is not intimate with Catholic doctrine, one could argue that the Catholic Church changed their doctrine in 2007 when the church issued a statement that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and will get to enjoy the beatific vision. But you and I both know that this is not so. Because, the Augustinian teachings was not doctrine but merely a theological hypothesis. So that when a Mormon argues with a Catholic and tells them - Catholics believe unbaptized infants will not be saved by virtue of original sin, alluding to the Augustinian teachings, you can correct them and point to the 2007 statement of the church. This is exactly what is happening here in this thread. You point out a theological supposition, we point you to the actual doctrine which is plainly: As far as we are concerned, God has always been God and will continue to be God everlasting.

Hope this helps.

Edited November 27, 2011 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

Is there an official church teaching on whether or not God has progressed. In other words, it seems that we all agree that God is now all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Was it always so?

[Mamas_Girl]

Is there an official church teaching on whether or not God has progressed. In other words, it seems that we all agree that God is now all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Was it always so?

Sorry, I spent some of the time researching out this answer. There has always been speculation regarding how God came to be. I think we've all been curious about this, I know I was long before I ever heard of Mormons.

Joseph Smith, and several of the 19th century prophets have taught regarding Heavenly Father having once been a man with a body of flesh and bones. Their scriptorial reference was John 5:19, where it read:

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things so ever he doesth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This has lead to speculation for many years, and for the famous As man is God once was debate. However, Latter-day Prophets of the 20th century basically have said that we don't know and we should basically leave it alone.

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

From this remark [John 5:19] we gather that the Son was doing what the Father had done before him. However, so far as the Father is concerned, we will leave that until we receive further knowledge, when and if we become glorified in his kingdom. (Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 2).

I did not actually see the Larry King episode, but I read in one of the forums here, that President Hinckley was addressed on the topic (thank you mormonmusic for posting this on the "God Once Was..." thread)

"I don't know that we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize it"

I went back to check my old Gospel Principles book and was unable to find anything regarding "As man is..." and I did a google search and found a website that lists changes in the book over the years starting in 1978, and I was surprised that it wasn't in there. I would have sworn it was. The site was to minister to us poor LDS, so if it was in the GP book, I'd think they'd have found it and made special mention of it.

So you can see that it is not an easy answer. Do we believe it? Dunno. Is it official doctrine? Dunno.

I'm assuming that this is what you were referring to when you asked if God was always all-knowing, etc.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Mamas_Girl
to add my final line

[FunkyTown]

Is there an official church teaching on whether or not God has progressed. In other words, it seems that we all agree that God is now all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Was it always so?

Luke 2:52:

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

How does an all-knowing person increase in wisdom?

[Blackmarch]

From what I understand of the LDS church and mormonism, Jesus Christ was the literal son of God, and not God himself (as trinitarian Christians believe)

that is prety much correct. We beelieve that the Father and the Son are two distinct individuals. And that both are Gods.

So is Jesus divine?

Yes

Or was/is he a man?

He is also a man, the perfect man who has shown us what we can potentially be.

Is the Holy Spirit not God either?

The Holy Ghost is not God the father and is also distinct from him (And not to be confused with God's own spirit). We know that he has the personage of man but does not have a physical Body as do God the Father and Jesus Christ. THe Holy GHost is the 3rd part of the Godhead and has the powers and duties thereof granted by God the Father.

What do you think, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," means? Is the Word, a.k.a. Scriptures, a.k.a. the Bible God? How can written words be God? Do you interpret the Word to Be Jesus? Why/Why not? If not Jesus, who is the "Word?"

The Word is not the scriptures, the Word is Christ, from whence all scriptures are given from. Since it is by Christ we are paid for, then it is from by his Word that we shall live by.

Also, on a slightly related note, how do you judge revelations? Since Joseph Smith had the first church-changing revelation, then some congregations voted racism/slavery out of the church later because of "revelations," what do you judge the revelations on?

by prayer and the spirit.

Does it say something about it in the Book of Mormon? Why should we believe Joseph? Don't you think he'd write a book justifying his revelations. If I said I heard God speaking to me, and I wrote some books about it based somewhat on the Scripture, how am I not to be believed, but Joseph was/is?

Thank you.

Yes it does as far as I know that the situation of Joseph smith and the book of mormon have been the first to fulfill a couple of Isaiac prophecies.

Is there reason to believe Joseph? yes! what JS had to say was very important, if he's telling the truth exactly as it happened to him, then anyone with an interest of doing God's will had better pay attention... which is why it is so important to get a confirmation from the spirit as to know whether or not He was God's servant and that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formed by God, deformed by Satan, transformed by Christ

interesting way to put man. Edited November 28, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Blackmarch]

Is there an official church teaching on whether or not God has progressed.

There have been prophets who taught this. There is a lot going for this concept, except that we don't have any scriptures explicitly saying so. However were God the Father to have at one point somewhere progressed from being sjust a spirit to full glory and exaltation, i'd wager it would have been in the way that Christ has.

In other words, it seems that we all agree that God is now all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Was it always so?

As far as i know.

[Vort]

Is there an official church teaching on whether or not God has progressed. In other words, it seems that we all agree that God is now all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Was it always so?

Your question is ultimately, "Does God progress?" Answering this question would require understanding what 'progression' means for God. It is possible the word has no meaning when applied to God, in which case the answer would be, "No, God does not progress."

I personally believe the word does indeed have meaning in that context, and the answer is, "Yes, God progresses." However, the nature of this progression is something I don't know, because I don't know God or the state of exaltation well enough to understand what 'progression' means to such a being. It may be as simple as this: God progresses through our progression, because bringing about our immortality and eternal life is God's glory.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

SaintMichael...

Let me explain this to you in a "Catholic" perspective so you can kinda understand what the Mormons are trying to tell you.

1.) Mormons do not believe in the infallability of Prophets like Catholics do with their Popes. Therefore, a Mormon Prophet can make commentary on doctrinal matters as a Man and not as a Prophet - when in a situation that does not require the Prophetic Keys. You will know that it is spoken as a man because the discourse is not addressed to the congregation and not vetted into scripture. Therefore, if a Prophet is invited to speak at a funeral, he need not speak as a Prophet - he can speak as a man, a friend of the deceased, and make non-prophetic discourses.

2.) The journal of discourses where you retrieved the "God was once Man" commentary is a compilation of non-prophetic discourses. Basically, they are discourses that were made by Prophets/Apostles that were not intended to be doctrinal. Some aligned perfectly with doctrine, others are merely theological suppositions and may not be doctrinal. The specific discourse you quoted was made by Joseph Smith at King Follet's funeral. He was speaking as a friend of the deceased. The discourse was a theological supposition - a hypothesis.

You can consider the situation similar to Saint Augustine's teaching on "limbo" where infants who die before baptism are not graced with the beatific vision. For somebody who is not intimate with Catholic doctrine, one could argue that the Catholic Church changed their doctrine in 2007 when the church issued a statement that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and will get to enjoy the beatific vision. But you and I both know that this is not so. Because, the Augustinian teachings was not doctrine but merely a theological hypothesis. So that when a Mormon argues with a Catholic and tells them - Catholics believe unbaptized infants will not be saved by virtue of original sin, alluding to the Augustinian teachings, you can correct them and point to the 2007 statement of the church. This is exactly what is happening here in this thread. You point out a theological supposition, we point you to the actual doctrine which is plainly: As far as we are concerned, God has always been God and will continue to be God everlasting.

Hope this helps.

Not only does this help, but I vote it for best riposte.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Nope, I pretty much know what my church teaches.

And I respect that. I respect that more than when somebody starts a thread and then abandons it.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Your question is ultimately, "Does God progress?" Answering this question would require understanding what 'progression' means for God. It is possible the word has no meaning when applied to God, in which case the answer would be, "No, God does not progress."

I personally believe the word does indeed have meaning in that context, and the answer is, "Yes, God progresses." However, the nature of this progression is something I don't know, because I don't know God or the state of exaltation well enough to understand what 'progression' means to such a being. It may be as simple as this: God progresses through our progression, because bringing about our immortality and eternal life is God's glory.

Then Joseph Smith was wrong. This gives rise to the question, what else could he have been wrong about? I've given up trying to get you to defend Joseph Smith's statement in the unambiguous language that he used. Here you seem to be attempting to set a more favorable context for the question to be answered that downplays the radically deviant statement by JS. John Doe thinks I should cite from an LDS doctrine source to back up my claim. I tend to think it's incumbant upon the defenders of the LDS to cite doctrine that clarifies, modifies, or even outright refutes Smith's stark statement.

[prisonchaplain]

Luke 2:52:

How does an all-knowing person increase in wisdom?

Jesus, when he humbled himself, "became a little lower than the angels." He was not all-knowing during his mortal existence. When the woman with the issue of blood touched him, Jesus turned and said, "Who touched me?" It is quite possible that he really did not know.

Thus, he matured as a normal human child would, for he was fully human. Nevertheless, he was without sin.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Jesus, when he humbled himself, "became a little lower than the angels." He was not all-knowing during his mortal existence. When the woman with the issue of blood touched him, Jesus turned and said, "Who touched me?" It is quite possible that he really did not know.

Thus, he matured as a normal human child would, for he was fully human. Nevertheless, he was without sin.

I'm more in the camp that balks at the notion that Jesus lost anything in regard to omniscience. His question "Who touched me?" is not unlike God's question to Adam in the garden, "Where are you?" These aren't questions born out of a lack of knowing, but rather questions that compell a confession. Jesus prophesied near events, such as Peter's denial of Him, and far events such as the destruction of the temple with detail. I think it's clear that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, not only of the future, but what lay in the hearts of men and what people discussed among themselves in secret. I'm quite certain Jesus knew exactly who touched him and even orchestrated the opportunity for this woman to be healed.

[Guest Ivo_G]

Then Joseph Smith was wrong. This gives rise to the question, what else could he have been wrong about? I've given up trying to get you to defend Joseph Smith's statement in the unambiguous language that he used. Here you seem to be attempting to set a more favorable context for the question to be answered that downplays the radically deviant statement by JS. John Doe thinks I should cite from an LDS doctrine source to back up my claim. I tend to think it's incumbant upon the defenders of the LDS to cite doctrine that clarifies, modifies, or even outright refutes Smith's stark statement.

Did you actually understand anatess' post? :)

Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God but he was also a man just like you and me. When he was revealing the word of God he most certainly wasn't "wrong" but not every word that came out of his mouth was the word of God - imagine how inconvenient would that be in his daily life

Just like you and me, JS too was entitled to his own opinion and although I'm inclined to put much greater trust in his "opinion" than in yours or mine - that in no ways means that he must always be 100% right (unless of course he has asked of God and God has decided to reveal him the answer)...

That's why we don't need to refute Joseph Smith's statements in the King Follet's discourse because that discourse was never considered a doctrine in the first place.

Imagine that President Monson (he's God's prophet just like JS) says that "New York is not a nice city" and then you start insisting that we must refute his statement and prove that this is not an official Church doctrine kinda ridiculous, isn't it?

Edited November 29, 2011 by Ivo_G

[Mamas_Girl]

What about the scripture in Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Admittedly he was not the typical child, for he knew he was going about his Father's business. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on this one, it just occured to me and thought I'd throw it out there. I suppose I'm probably leaning on the side of he was progressing, but at a much higher rate than mere mortal children, for they do say that he was asking questions that astounded the people around him.

Oops, I just saw this from Prisonchaplain: "Thus, he matured as a normal human child would, for he was fully human. Nevertheless, he was without sin." Huh? Ya lost me, he'd be half-human, right? The other half was God (the Father).

Edited November 29, 2011 by Mamas_Girl
Added my last paragraph.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Children are sinless until they reach 8 years of age according to LDS beliefs, however they are not perfect. Jesus had to grow, learn, and mature just like any other human would. The unique aspect of Jesus is that he had no mortal father, and he maintained his sinless condition throughout his life. Basically, the verse is saying Jesus got smarter and physically larger as he grew up...just like any other human would. He also was looked upon favorably by people around him and by his true father as well.

We balk at admitting that Jesus was a kid, but it's true. He had to go through all the challenges of a mortal life in order to be an appropriate sacrifice for sin....but that's another thread topic.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

What about the scripture in Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Admittedly he was not the typical child, for he knew he was going about his Father's business. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings on this one, it just occured to me and thought I'd throw it out there. I suppose I'm probably leaning on the side of he was progressing, but at a much higher rate than mere mortal children, for they do say that he was asking questions that astounded the people around him.

Oops, I just saw this from Prisonchaplain: "Thus, he matured as a normal human child would, for he was fully human. Nevertheless, he was without sin." Huh? Ya lost me, he'd be half-human, right? The other half was God (the Father).

Actually Jesus was FULLY human and FULLY God, not a hybrid of the two.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Did you actually understand anatess' post? :)

Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God but he was also a man just like you and me. When he was revealing the word of God he most certainly wasn't "wrong" but not every word that came out of his mouth was the word of God - imagine how inconvenient would that be in his daily life

Just like you and me, JS too was entitled to his own opinion and although I'm inclined to put much greater trust in his "opinion" than in yours or mine - that in no ways means that he must always be 100% right (unless of course he has asked of God and God has decided to reveal him the answer)...

That's why we don't need to refute Joseph Smith's statements in the King Follet's discourse because that discourse was never considered a doctrine in the first place.

Imagine that President Monson (he's God's prophet just like JS) says that "New York is not a nice city" and then you start insisting that we must refute his statement and prove that this is not an official Church doctrine kinda ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes, I understood Anatess's post but I don't agree there is a parallel between JS and the Pope in any way. Context is everything. When Joseph Smith speaks in a pedagogical manner using words like "yea", he's teaching. These weren't off the cuff remarks nor was it quotidian conversation. What we're actually seeing here is a philosophical freelancer with no check on his flights of theological fancy. He had a number of devoted followers that hung on his every word and he was refuted by nobody, nor taken to task to demonstrate his claims in the Bible. You may, many decades later, dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions, but the Mormons of his day most certainly did not.

[Guest]

Yes, I understood Anatess's post but I don't agree there is a parallel between JS and the Pope in any way. Context is everything. When Joseph Smith speaks in a pedagogical manner using words like "yea", he's teaching. These weren't off the cuff remarks nor was it quotidian conversation. What we're actually seeing here is a philosophical freelancer with no check on his flights of theological fancy. He had a number of devoted followers that hung on his every word and he was refuted by nobody, nor taken to task to demonstrate his claims in the Bible. You may, many decades later, dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions, but the Mormons of his day most certainly did not.

Jesus Christ was thought of as a philosophical freelancer too - nothing wrong with that.

I don't agree that he has "no check on his flights of theological fancy" - his entire life was all about fighting off those who want to check his flights of theological fancy. Even his very own wife checks his flights of theological fancy.

He had a number of followers who hung to his every word - but so does anybody worth mention in any church. But, he surely was refuted by so many that it became legal to eradicate Mormons in Missouri. Not taken to task to demonstrate his claims? We're doing it until today! It's what this thread is all about isn't it? I'm sure this endless request for demonstrations did not just start in LDS.net Forum.

Many decades later, we don't dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions - none of it. He was not a thoughtless man. I'm sure you don't dismiss Saint Augustine's teachings as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions either. We have suppositions and we have revelations. We need to recognize the difference between the two. And the difference doesn't hinge on the use of the word Yea.

Canon is not the work of one man. It's the work of God. It would be much easier, wouldn't it, if Jesus would have just written the Bible himself. Or if God would just appear in our very midst and say it isn't so. But alas, the work of God continues regardless of human frailty. And that's the difference between Catholics and Mormons - Catholics expect their Priesthood to cease to be human.

[Just_A_Guy]

He had a number of devoted followers that hung on his every word and he was refuted by nobody, nor taken to task to demonstrate his claims in the Bible. You may, many decades later, dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions, but the Mormons of his day most certainly did not.

I don't think this is correct. Leaving aside John C. Bennett and dissidents who created the Expositor (which, I believe, publicly repudiated many of the ideas in the KFD); there's the simple fact that the Nauvoo Stake President and Smith's own wife Emma were two of the founding members of the Reorganized LDS Church/Communities of Christ, which pretty much rejects every new doctrine Smith unveiled during the Nauvoo period.

(Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here since I personally have absolutely no problem with the KFD.)

[prisonchaplain]

I'm more in the camp that balks at the notion that Jesus lost anything in regard to omniscience. His question "Who touched me?" is not unlike God's question to Adam in the garden, "Where are you?" These aren't questions born out of a lack of knowing, but rather questions that compell a confession. Jesus prophesied near events, such as Peter's denial of Him, and far events such as the destruction of the temple with detail. I think it's clear that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, not only of the future, but what lay in the hearts of men and what people discussed among themselves in secret. I'm quite certain Jesus knew exactly who touched him and even orchestrated the opportunity for this woman to be healed.

If Jesus was fully human, and he had humbled himself, not grasping to his equality with the Father, then it seems more likely that he did not know all things at all times. The miracles his performed, and the supernatural knowledge he did sometimes exhibit, we the types of things we disciples can all see. Jesus told us we would do more than he did.

To use an example from the LDS faith, Joseph Smith is said to have been given supernatural inspiration to translate the BoM into English. Yet, outside of that work, did he ever claim expertise in foreign languages? If so, all of them?

Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit. He performed miracles and showed divine knowledge at times. These were from the Holy Spirit, and similar to what we can have. I disagree that Jesus remained omniscient during his earthly sojourn.