Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Joseph]

peterson wrote: " That the destiny of the righteous is to receive all that God has, and to be "gods."
*********************************

Gordon hinckley said Mormons do not believe that.

As for the name of the church, Joseph Smith organized The Church of Christ. Then another name later and only 8 years later was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made the name by revelation. The current name in use is not the one Jesus gave. It has been changed. Looks like current leaders know more than Jesus did.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The prophethood of Joseph Smith, or the claim that Thomas Monson alone has the right in our current time to exercise all priesthood keys, could not have been fundamental to making one a Christian in the first century, but they are certainly essential to being a faithful Latter-day Saint in full communion on 2 April 2011. In A.D. 32, professing that Christ's tomb was empty was not a fundamental part of being a Christian. By A.D. 35, it was.
...
I think it accurate and fair to say that the religion lived out and manifested in Jesus in first-century Palestine lacked certain fundamentals that have been revealed by Jesus to the Latter-day Saints since then. That is rather the point of the concept of continuous revelation.

You will presumably disagree. But the question addressed by this thread regards the content of my faith and that of my fellow believers, not the content of yours.
...

I do not suppose it matters all that much, when I agree or
disagree. I'd say that it matters much more if Heavenly Father
happens to disagree with an LDS-articulated "fundamental."

But if "fundamentals" can be imagined to have been lacking
in past manifestations (dispensations?) of the Saints' religion
(the faith which was once delivered to the saints), then can
we also imagine "fundamentals" which stand in need of removal?

Pardon my rough example -- but if this Monson gentleman
you speak of were to announce some marvelous wonder of
doctrinal innovation, might it be established as a "fundamental"
which replaced or nullified some prior Divine precept?

Say, it were announced in a new D&C section that the names
of Eloheim's parents were two certain proper nouns: would our
Heavenly Grandparents thus become a new LDS "fundamental,"
never to be destablished? Or, assuming such a "fundamental"
could be added to the LDS religion, might a subsequent voice of
authority one day nullify that doctrinal precept, as no longer valid?

It seems to my admittedly faulty understanding, that this
constellation of "fundamentals" should necessarily be small,
constrained and eternally changeless ----> and that deletions
and/or additions to latter day doctrine necessarily be things
of lesser status than eternal fundamentals.

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well we could debate that but this thread is not the place.

True, and true.

I bring it up because of what I perceive as a problematic thing when attempting to define even fundamental LDS doctrine. The curse of Cain reasoning was certainly taught from the pulpit, publishes in LDS manuals and even referred to in an FP statement. Yet you now would view it as speculative and in your opinion not doctrine. Did you ever view it as such? I did when taught it as a teen by leaders and teachers.

I think I can honestly say that I never viewed it as official doctrine. (Or, at least, not for very long, once I became active in my teens and began to reflect upon it.)

We always heard that the priesthood restriction had something to do with the premortal existence (lack of valiancy, or something of that sort) and/or with being descendants of Cain, but such notions always seemed provisional attempts to account for a puzzling practice.

Once again that is nice for you and me now but the prophet of God and the LDS apostles taught it from the pulpit and stated it as doctrinal.

There's no question about the former, but I'm not convinced of the latter. I'm not even sure, short of issuing a formal proclamation or presenting it to the Church for a vote, how that would be done in an unambiguous way.

How then can one determine at any point in time is really doctrine.

That's the topic of my opening post, which, I think, answers the question pretty well.

Your comments seem to me to highlight this problem?

As I've said, if you want a formal and formally demarcated creed, Mormonism is the wrong religion in which to find it.

That said, the gross doctrinal instability and utterly opaque theology that some critics and some alienated members claim to see simply don't, and, so far as I can tell, never have, bothered the overwhelming majority of practicing, believing, committed Latter-day Saints. Why? Because we don't see them, and don't recognize the Church to which they're ascribed.

Should we just stick with the simple correlated basics which is what the Church seems to want today? Can we honestly then just ignore the rest?

I honestly can't see much harm coming from that course.

Again you might think that but the historical record surely disputes this. Those who accepted the 1835 D&C accepted the Lectures as the doctrine of their newest addition to Canon. How you can get around the historical record on this I do not know.

If you have evidence that a substantial number of people in the Church at the time that the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants regarded that removal as a drastic reduction of the size of our scriptural canon, I would be intrigued to read it.

I'm perfectly content with the Book of Mormon's teaching about God.

Me too. But they lack much of what came after 1838 in any clear and succinct way. One could use the Book of Mormon just like they do the New Testament to argue for against creedal trinitarianism.

Possibly true. At least, I'll concede that for the moment, just for the sake of the more central discussion.

President Hinckley chose, for good or ill, wisely or not, not to expound that doctrine on at least two occasions for the national news media. But the Church still teaches the doctrine.

Yes but seemingly less and less.

Actually, I don't recall the doctrine ever being superprominent in our ordinary sacrament meetings or general conference sessions.

Nor have I sensed that it's any less frequently discussed today. Not in the branches, wards, and stakes that I've been attending for decades.

I speak about it fairly frequently.

True, but you've said that the purpose of LDS apologetics is to defend the fundamental claims of Mormonism, and it's very difficult to see how the articles I cited are engaged in this task.

The FARMS Review has never been purely or even largely apologetic in its intent. That's simply one of your many misconceptions about it.

So, unless you can lay out a clear case that the bulk of the articles in the Review are actually engaged with what you've described here, I think you'll need to at last concede that Mopologetics is really doing something else.

The FARMS Review has never been solely or even primarily apologetic in its intent. That's simply one of your many errors regarding it.

Which, incidentally, is exactly what I've been saying for a few years now.

One of the constant features of your now half-decade-old crusade is and always has been that you've been wrong.

If yes how can you reconcile this with evolution. If not a literal man what does this do to the teachings about a fall, and the need for a savior? . . . Maybe I was too literal in my LDS TBM days. But lack of a real Adam and a real fall seems very problematic for the need for a savior as well as other fundamental Christian and then LDS ideas and doctrines.

Did you miss my comment, above, that I think Latter-day Saints need to believe in a literal historical Adam?

Still, it seems to me that Christ's atonement would remain relevant even without a fall. And, since we die whether or not there was an Adam, the resurrection loses none of its significance either way.

Too bad you do not have time. Best wishes in your up and coming travels.

Thank you.

I do not suppose it matters all that much, when I agree or
disagree. I'd say that it matters much more if Heavenly Father
happens to disagree with an LDS-articulated "fundamental."

That's the ultimate question, of course.

But with all due respect, again, it's not the question to which this thread is devoted.

But if "fundamentals" can be imagined to have been lacking
in past manifestations (dispensations?) of the Saints' religion
(the faith which was once delivered to the saints), then can
we also imagine "fundamentals" which stand in need of removal?

I suppose, in a sense.

If one wishes to be in full fellowship with God, it's essential to be in full fellowship with his prophets. Just as, in the centuries prior to the birth of Isaiah, that didn't include listening to Isaiah, so too, in a way, it hasn't been quite so urgent since Isaiah's death to be paying close attention to every Isaianic word.

It seems to my admittedly faulty understanding, that this
constellation of "fundamentals" should necessarily be small,
constrained and eternally changeless ----> and that deletions
and/or additions to latter day doctrine necessarily be things
of lesser status than eternal fundamentals.

That's true in most cases, but not in all.

Christianity introduced new concepts (at least in terms of mass audiences) that were not widely disseminated in Judaism. To be a good Jew, one didn't have to accept Jesus of Nazareth as messiah. To be a good Christian, one did.

Your conception of God and of revelation is not that of a communicant, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This thread is about fundamental beliefs of that church. It's responding to a question about the fundamental beliefs of that church. It's not about the beliefs of other churches, nor the beliefs of people who aren't members of that church.

[Bedlamite]

...
Christianity introduced new concepts (at least in terms of mass audiences) that were not widely disseminated in Judaism. To be a good Jew, one didn't have to accept Jesus of Nazareth as messiah. To be a good Christian, one did.

I would be very happy if somebody were to make a discovery
of what the oral law was in Jesus' day -- and how his words
of instruction developed or clarified that oral law. Perhaps each
Jewish sect had its own distinct flavor of Mosaic interpretation.

I asked my Jewish wife if the 613 commandments constitute
the "fundamentals" of her people's religion -- and she only
shook her head and suggested that I consult Hillel the Elder.

Your conception of God and of revelation is not that of a communicant, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This thread is about fundamental beliefs of that church. It's responding to a question about the fundamental beliefs of that church. It's not about the beliefs of other churches, nor the beliefs of people who aren't members of that church.

The Church of 1830, or of 1844, or of 1890, or of 2012? I fully
accept that your explanation of the "fundamental beliefs" of
the latter two eras will outdistance anything I might try and say.

But we have common roots in the former two eras -- and I
think it actually helps illustrate your case, to use my profession
as a comparison with the changing development of your own.

For example, I would not characterize the ordination of women
to priesthood ministry as a change in any Divine principle --
while you might well make use of my unchanging views on such
a matter as a backdrop for explaining the dynamics of your own
sect's version of priesthood and continuing revelation.

Just a suggestion -- you may have more important matters that
require your attention, than making these odious comparisons.

UD

[_Joey]

President Hinckley chose, for good or ill, wisely or not, not to expound that doctrine on at least two occasions for the national news media. But the Church still teaches the doctrine.

CFR

Where does the LDS Church openly teach that men can become God?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where does the LDS Church openly teach that men can become God?

Can become "gods," you mean? Or like God?

You can't be serious. (Well, of course you're not. What am I thinking of? You're Joey.)

One place is in innumerable lectures and firesides that I've given. (Only in Provo, of course. Last weekend, for example, in the part of Provo known as Frankfurt-am-Main.)

Another place is Doctrine and Covenants 76:58.

[_Doctor Scratch]

True, but you've said that the purpose of LDS apologetics is to defend the fundamental claims of Mormonism, and it's very difficult to see how the articles I cited are engaged in this task.

The FARMS Review has never been purely or even largely apologetic in its intent. That's simply one of your many misconceptions about it.

Are you serious?

So, unless you can lay out a clear case that the bulk of the articles in the Review are actually engaged with what you've described here, I think you'll need to at last concede that Mopologetics is really doing something else.

The FARMS Review has never been solely or even primarily apologetic in its intent. That's simply one of your many errors regarding it.

If that's the case, then this is a landmark moment in the history of Mopologetics. You sure managed to fool everybody pretty good these past 20 or so years, Dr. Peterson. But I guess it's awful nice of you to finally---at long last---come out and say that the Review isn't about defending the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism. Of course, most observers already knew this, but it's nice of you to say so yourself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you serious?

Of course.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

If that's the case, then this is a landmark moment in the history of Mopologetics.

Yawn.

You sure managed to fool everybody pretty good these past 20 or so years, Dr. Peterson.

"Fool" everybody? LOL. You're admitting that you're a fool?

This is a molehill moment in the history of nothing in particular.

What you really mean to say, of course, though you're too confused and perpetually hostile to say it, is that you're now beginning to dimly grasp reality.

The Review has never claimed to be all about apologetics, and has never been all about apologetics.

Look at the first issue, way back in 1989. Actually look at it. Take a brief pause for once from trying to find ammunition for your ridiculous campaign against me and actually look at what's there. Of the seventeen reviews in that issue, roughly three deal in any significant way with apologetic matters.

But I guess it's awful nice of you to finally---at long last---come out and say that the Review isn't about defending the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism.

I said that that isn't all it's about. For that matter, it's not even largely about that. Try for once not to misrepresent what I say; it's not especially complex in this case.

And, anyway, you created your demonology. I didn't. You're responsible for it. I'm not.

I'm also going to take this opportunity -- at long last -- to come out and say that I wasn't the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas, that I did not write the lyrics to "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," that I've never been elected to the NFL Hall of Fame, and that I'm not a professional bassoonist.

Of course, most observers already knew this, but it's nice of you to say so yourself.

I'll bet your creative juices are really flowing just now.

Reasonable people will know what to make of whatever silliness you invent, though -- that is, if any such people (beside me) ever notice it.

[_moksha]

You say above that the location of Book of Mormon events is not "fundamental," ...

I completely agree with Dr. Peterson on this point. How I learned this was that the Hill Cumorah was right outside of Palmyra, New York. They even have an annual pageant in that town emphasizing this point. If one looks at the Vern Holly maps, it seems hard to come to any other conclusion as to where the events transpired.

However, when I learned that many want the events to be in Central America, that is fine by me. Why try to codify speculation in the first place? It simply is nonessential. Anything more than this is like trying to elevate the Word of Wisdom to the status of the two Great Commandments.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What you really mean to say, of course, though you're too confused and perpetually hostile to say it, is that you're now beginning to dimly grasp reality.

The Review has never claimed to be all about apologetics, and has never been all about apologetics.

Look at the first issue, way back in 1989. Actually look at it. Take a brief pause for once from trying to find ammunition for your ridiculous campaign against me and actually look at what's there. Of the seventeen reviews in that issue, roughly three deal in any significant way with apologetic matters.

Meaning, what? If only 3 of the 17 deal with "apologetic matters," what does that say, exactly? That the Review has always been about something other than defending the central truth claims of the Church? To that I would say, "No kidding." You guys formed this primarily as an attack journal.

The basic fact you can't escape is this: the Review had ultimately come to represent the flagship apologetic journal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. *Everyone* who knows anything about the Church and its various controversies and problems knows this very basic fact. If you cannot defend or describe the Review as an "apologetic" journal, then we all have to wonder what its purpose is. I and others have suggested that it is a venue for very aggressive and unethical attacks on critics. If you can't play the "apologetics" card anymore, then I really have to wonder what cards you're left holding.

But I guess it's awful nice of you to finally---at long last---come out and say that the Review isn't about defending the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism.

I said that that isn't all it's about. For that matter, it's not even largely about that. Try for once not to misrepresent what I say; it's not especially complex in this case.

Dan---I'm not *trying* to "misrepresent" anything. I've always said that the Review was a major departure from the best aspects of Mormonism.