The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

Post by **_Runtu** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:12 pm

Jason Bourne wrote:There is no question the LDS theology pre 1838 was more traditional with other sects of Christianity. While as I noted, there was some divergence, it was still more classical in nature. The Book of Mormon particularly the passage you refer to demonstrates this. But Mormonism took a radical departure post 1838. Now it seems that we are back peddling. As noted, Joseph Smith taught that eternal life was based on knowing God, His characteristics and attributes and it was not just some hazy idea in order to practice being a better Christian and more Christ like.

But I can tell you that personally, I have come to conclude that the LDS Church really is a moving target on its doctrine so I, like Wade, focus on practice and practical living and just don't worry much about the details about what God is. Why should I if our prophets and apostles cannot seem to get it straight either.

I think that's a prudent way to approach things if you believe at all in Mormonism. My problem is that I don't believe in it, so there's not much practical in following a religion I don't believe in.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:21 pm

LDS apologetics is possible because there is a core, settled body of doctrine in the Church that all faithful LDS agree upon. We also, as my life long experience in the Church suggests, agree upon most of the unofficial, yet long taught and generally settled "unofficial" doctrines which are true, but not as yet brought from the periphery to the center.

Please point me to the outline of the settled body of doctrine all LDS agree on. And what happens if it disagrees with what other leaders once taught and was viewed by them and those that listened ans a settled body of doctrine.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:23 pm

beastie wrote:
I believe that the idea of divine embodiment would answer that yes. Think if Ether where the brother of Jared sees the finger of the Lord (Jesus pre mortal) and is scared because he did not think God had a body. Then the pre mortal Jesus reveals himself and says the body of his spirit looks the same as his body will. Makes sense I think.

Then how did he know Jesus had a body if they look exactly the same?

Jesus was resurrected. Look, this is not a big issue to me and I was simply bringing up a plausible explanation in light of the idea the a spirit is embodied. I am ok if you think is a bad argument.

Post by **_wenglund** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:24 pm

In terms of the Lectures on Faith, I think it of interest to note:

1) While the Lectures on Faith are often attributed in total to Joseph Smith, there is evidence to suggest that some, if not most, of the lectures were written and delivered by Sidney Rigdon (see: Lectures on Faith).

2) While it is true that one of the three things necessary in order to excercise faith in God unto eternal life is, as previously qouted from the LoF (p.36), "A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes", the following Q&A explain how these correct ideas come about:

Q. How do men obtain a knowledge of the glory of God, his perfections and attributes?
A. By devoting themselves to his service, through prayer and supplication incessantly, strengthening their faith in him, until like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they obtain a manifestation of God to themselves. (2:55.) (LoF p.35

As for the correct ideas about God's character, the LoF states:

"Moses gives us the following account in Exodus, 34:6: "And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord God, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." Psalm 103:6,7,8: "The Lord executes righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy:" Psalm 103:17,18: "But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them."....First John, 4:8. "He that loves not, knows not God; for God is love...."

What better way to obtain a greater understanding of these characteristics of God than by our being "merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth", "slow to anger", righteous, loving, etc.?

3) While, according to the LoF, a correct idea of God's character is necessary to excercise faith in God unto eternal life, an exhaustive and completely accurate knowledge of all of God's characteristics is not necessary. For example, one need not have extensive knowledge about the nature of God's love in order to have faith in him, but rather just a basic knowledge that God is love and loving. The LoF explains:

"Q. Would it be possible for a man to exercise faith in God, so as to be saved, unless he had an idea that God was love?
A. He could not; because man could not love God, unless he had an idea that God was love, and if he did not love God, he could not have faith in him. (3:24). (ibid. p.43)

Besides, these are ideas that one needs to have in order to exercise faith in God unto salvation, and since faith entails growth from weak faith to strong faith, it is reasonable to presume that the more developed ones ideas or knowledge or belief become regarding God's character, the greater one's faith unto salvation. So, perfect and absolutely correct knowledge is not requisite to enter the path of salvific faith, but is the final destination of the path. By this I mean that were a person to innitial view God the Father as a personage of spirit, that as long as that person considered God to be merciful and loving, that person would be able to exercise faith in God, and as one progresses in faith, eventually come to a full and entirely accurate understanding of God's character, unto salvation and eternal life in Christ.

4) According to the LoF, another of the three things necessary in order to excercise faith in God unto eternal life is: "An actual knowledge that the course of life which he [the person wishing to exercise salvific faith] is pursuing, is according to his [God's] will." (ibid. p.36)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:24 pm

Are you folks really this naïve and facile, or is this a game being played for which I just don't understand the rules?

If you really don't understand LDS doctrine to this degree, what on earth are you doing criticizing it? Do you really need help with this, or would you like to try again and see if you can make it on your own here without training wheels?

Any TBMs who know the answer to this, I'd like to see a post helping the Dawkinites with Joseph's quote regarding God being a personage of Spirit. Gee, I wonder why I never had a problem understanding what Joseph, in light of other basic LDS doctrine, meant here?

Hint: we are all personages of spirit in LDS teaching.

Please, I've been doing really well with the alcohol of late. Please don't tempt me...

How odd, then, that Joseph Smith specifically differentiated between Jesus having a tabernacle of flesh, and God the Father being a personage of spirit. Quite odd when, in fact, they mean the exact same thing.

Go have a drink. Perhaps it will help you think more clearly.

Post by **_Coggins7** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:25 pm

Do you agree that the Church teaches God was once a man?

Yes.

Do you agree with it teaches, or once taught that there is an infinite regression of God's?

Yes.

Well I have prayed about both of these. And the spirit tells me that God the Father was never a man like us and that there is not an infinite regression of Gods.

So you say...

Both teachings contradict official LDS Canon. And there is a bright LDS fellow out there named Blake Ostler that agrees. Have you read anything by him?

Forgive me but who gives a tinker's damn what Blake Ostler thinks about this teaching, regardless of how bright he is. Blake Oster is an academic philosopher who's methods of intellectual analysis have no means nor access, in and of themselves, to the truth of the matter here. Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration taught very clearly and in lucid language that God was once a man like we ourselves, and that the plan of salvation has existed from eternity.

When you put Blake Ostler to the side of Joseph Smith, and ask the question "who understands the things of eternity more comprehensively" and "who has authority to reveal the things of eternity to humans on earth", Mr. Oster (God bless 'em) must take a bow and exit the stage.

Oh, and by the way, the "spirit" you're talking to is telling you things inconsistent with what he's told me on the matter. That little caveat is also food for some very serious thought (and I'm sure Bro. Ostler has some deeply sophisticated arguments to make on that subject as well). Well, I can make deeply sophisticated arguments too, but that's not how Gospel knowledge is either gained or maintained (though it is a useful appendage).

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:26 pm

Any TBMs who know the answer to this, I'd like to see a post helping the Dawkinites with Joseph's quote regarding God being a personage of Spirit. Gee, I wonder why I never had a problem understanding what Joseph, in light of other basic LDS doctrine, meant here?

Hint: we are all personages of spirit in LDS teaching.

Nope Coggins this duck does not fly. In the lecture where God is declared a personage of spirit this is contrasted against Christ who is declared to be a personage of tabernacle. Really why do you think that after 1916 when the FP issued Talmage's treatise on the Godhead and it conflicted with the Lectured on Faith , they were removed from Canon.

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:30 pm

If the only reliable teachings needed is how to behave like Christ, then why did the apostasy even occur? Why would God ever withdraw his authority from his church? Who cares what they're teaching, as long as they teach people to follow Christ.

This is turning into a fine example of how wide the divide is between internet apologetics and chapel Mormonism.

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:36 pm

Do you agree that the Church teaches God was once a man?

Yes.

Do you agree with it teaches, or once taught that there is an infinite regression of God's?

Yes.

Well I have prayed about both of these. And the spirit tells me that God the Father was never a man like us and that there is not an infinite regression of Gods.

So you say...

So you doubt my witness? Why is that? Because it disagrees with yours. I recall you once blowing your top when I insinuated you could now "KNOW" certain things.

Forgive me but who gives a tinker's damn what Blake Ostler thinks about this teaching, regardless of how bright he is.

Oh I am sure.

Blake Oster is an academic philosopher who's methods of intellectual analysis have no means nor access, in and of themselves, to the truth of the matter here. Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration taught very clearly and in lucid language that God was once a man like we ourselves, and that the plan of salvation has existed from eternity.

When you put Blake Ostler to the side of Joseph Smith, and ask the question "who understands the things of eternity more comprehensively" and "who has authority to reveal the things of eternity to humans on earth", Mr. Oster (God bless 'em) must take a bow and exit the stage

.

Well Like it or not our current Prophet downplayed the idea the God was once a man as we are now. And the church teaches little about an infinite regression of Gods. And these both do confict with Canon, but this could be added to canon. Neither teaching have even gone through the canonization process.

Oh, and by the way, the "spirit" you're talking to is telling you things inconsistent with what he's told me on the matter.

Well this is a problem because I can tell you this issue has been for me the most important truth to determine since it is the one Joseph Smith said more often then once that knowing God and His attributes was the most important thing for us to know. And I believe I have had a spiritual witness that at least God the eternal father and the eternal God of all other gods as the D&C says, was never a man like us. I do hold out that he may have been a man like Jesus His son was. And I believe he is eternal in the way we understand that word and that nothing came before him. I believe that there may have been gods after Him . And I am quite sure I have had a witness of this.

That little caveat is also food for some very serious thought (and I'm sure Bro. Ostler has some deeply sophisticated arguments to make on that subject as well). Well, I can make deeply sophisticated arguments too, but that's not how Gospel knowledge is either gained or maintained (though it is a useful appendage).

Perhaps what is serious food for thought is the spirit seems to have given us conflicting witnesses and you seem to think yours Trump's mine. Why?

Post by **_wenglund** » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:41 pm

beastie wrote:If the only reliable teachings needed is how to behave like Christ, then why did the apostasy even occur? Why would God ever withdraw his authority from his church? Who cares what they're teaching, as long as they teach people to follow Christ.

This is turning into a fine example of how wide the divide is between internet apologetics and chapel Mormonism.

If you are referring here to what I said earlier in this thread, you are again putting words into my mouth that I cannot relate to. Not only did I not suggest that "the only reliable teachings needed is how to behave like Christ"--and no reasonable minded person would think that I had, but I have twice on this thread corrected others who mistakenly jumped to that same false conclusion. But, this is to be expected of you, just as it is expected that your mind will remain fixed in that false perception.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-