Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Nightlion]

Our fundamental doctrines are entirely clear.

I wonder then if you could be so kind as to clarify LDS doctrines and fix my forty years of perplexity in regard to the basic gospel preached by Jesus Christ and ignored by all things LDS. Why is this skated over and not taught proficiently and the accomplishment of the same manifested in an manner that bespeaks competency? How is an imperceptible process not making more of less of it?

3 Nephi 11
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

And why does the LDS Church fail to admonish people to take no thought for their lives as they seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Do you not think Christ was giving us an needed admonition because it takes this degree of earnestness to attract the Father's will to draw us unto Christ?

Matthew 6:25, 33
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
....
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

John 6
John 6: 44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And if you are not Zion you are not mine. How is the LDS Church not hypocrite to this commandment of Jesus Christ? Has not the LDS Church fallen to own only the forms of godliness and denied the power thereof?

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I am so thankful that both DCP and BCSpace continue to contribute to this message board clearing up what is and what isn't LDS doctrine.

[_bcspace]

My point has been in two parts; 1. Current GA's do not define LDS doctrine as Joseph Smith, BY, or OP, did either in print or from the pulpit.

Neither did they. Since 1835, the FP and Qo12 have been equal in authority.

Or books and teaching manuals, by the past GA’s that I referenced, that taught and defined core LDS thought.

If you are refering to BRM and JFS, their works were published against the recommendation of the Church and not being published by the Church, were never official doctrine though it is true that many take them for such. Having said that, their works contain much good doctrine. But one would never know it unless the same was found in an LDS publication.

2. “You Guys", the four or five hundred as you put it, do not get into these past doctrines. A common excuse is, ‘I wouldn’t do it here’…that’s a cop out, it is either truth or not. Why would someone be afraid to expound on what they believe?

There really isn't much in the way of past doctrines in any official sense. But I see no harm in discussing say BY's Adam Sr/Jr theory so long as one realizes it isn't doctrine and never was.

I believe this is because LDS theology, by appearance, is evolving more or less into a more main stream type of religion. Among reasons for this are political correctness, embarrassments, and avoiding clear contradictions by different past authorities.

There's been no evolution of doctrine as far as I can tell. As most, there is a changing presentation of different aspects of the same doctrine to fit the notions of political correctness which admittedly I really hate to see the Church do because others have obviously and erroneously taken it as a sign of changing doctrine. Doctrine on homosexuality is a good example of this.

[_Markk]

Neither did they. Since 1835, the FP and Qo12 have been equal in authority.

Huhhh? Whats you point

If you are referring to BRM and JFS, their works were published against the recommendation of the Church and not being published by the Church, were never official doctrine though it is true that many take them for such. Having said that, their works contain much good doctrine. But one would never know it unless the same was found in an LDS publication.

So then of these works what is true and what is false doctrine? Why did they advertise Doctrine of Salvation in church magazines? Why do they still quote and teach it's teachings? Why is it given a five star rating at deseret books? Here is the description from the church owned publisher:

A three-volume set of authoritative sermons that is a must for every LDS library. The path to salvation and happiness is explored and explained. This book provides a rich treasury of President Smith's timeless gospel insights. (bold mine)

And I am also referring to teaching from the pulpit, GTTA is one authoritative teaching manual, and there are other works I could cf.

There really isn't much in the way of past doctrines in any official sense. But I see no harm in discussing say BY's Adam Sr/Jr theory so long as one realizes it isn't doctrine and never was.

LoL, are you kidding me? Then what is and what is not LDS doctrine? Are you telling me that of all the LDS doctrine taught, not much of it is official? What were these men teaching and writing, unofficial guess's. so much for the restoration? How can you claim to restore something without being clear what the restoration data is?

BC, is the law of eternal progression a LDS core/essential doctrine? Has it been taught in a "official sense?"

BY never once said anything about Adam sr or jr, but that is for another post. If you care to start a thread on it I would love to respond.

There's been no evolution of doctrine as far as I can tell

Huhh, I thought you said ..."There really isn't much in the way of past doctrines in any official sense."

Do you believe that God was once a man like you and me, and that he through obedience became a god and that man through following the same path can have all that your heavenly father has ( same power and nature).

Whether you believe this or not, many LDS members do not. GBH wasn't even sure of this, yet it was clearly taught as authoritative core LDS doctrine. I believe the nature of God has evolved greatly over the years in LDS thought.

Blacks and the priesthood has evolved, I'm not even sure if today's leadership knows why the discriminated, but now they don't= evolution of a doctrine.

The temple endowments are certainly evolving, as is the temple clothing.

The doctrine of the holy spirit vs holy ghost has evolved, or just ignored. do you believe they are one and the same in LDS thought?

The word of wisdom, which I would say is doctrine, are evolving. I would get grounded when I was a kid for drinking a coke, and yet many of my TBM LDS family pound red bulls like water. The Meat thing has certainly evolved.

These are just a few on the top of my head. You mentioned Homosexuality, i think women's rights go in that category.

And I also noticed that funeral potatoes are evolving, I was just up to Utah for a family passing and they were really runny, they sucked. But the green jello was good.

Take Care
MG

[_Nightlion]

Our fundamental doctrines are entirely clear.

I wonder then if you could be so kind as to clarify LDS doctrines and fix my forty years of perplexity in regard to the basic gospel preached by Jesus Christ and ignored by all things LDS. Why is this skated over and not taught proficiently and the accomplishment of the same manifested in an manner that bespeaks competency? How is an imperceptible process not making more of less of it?

3 Nephi 11
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

And why does the LDS Church fail to admonish people to take no thought for their lives as they seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Do you not think Christ was giving us an needed admonition because it takes this degree of earnestness to attract the Father's will to draw us unto Christ?

Matthew 6:25, 33
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
....
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

John 6
John 6: 44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And if you are not Zion you are not mine. How is the LDS Church not hypocrite to this commandment of Jesus Christ? Has not the LDS Church fallen to own only the forms of godliness and denied the power thereof?

b for DCP

[_bcspace]

Neither did they. Since 1835, the FP and Qo12 have been equal in authority.

Huhhh? Whats you point

That the individuals you mentioned did not make doctrine either without sanction from the rest.

So then of these works what is true and what is false doctrine?

That which you can find in officially published works is doctrine.

Why did they advertise Doctrine of Salvation in church magazines?

Why not?

Why do they still quote and teach it's teachings?

Because those officially quoted parts are doctrine.

Why is it given a five star rating at deseret books? Here is the description from the church owned publisher:

A three-volume set of authoritative sermons that is a must for every LDS library. The path to salvation and happiness is explored and explained. This book provides a rich treasury of President Smith's timeless gospel insights. (bold mine)

Meaningless. Deseret Book is not an official publisher for the Church. DB does indeed however, carry works published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And I am also referring to teaching from the pulpit,

Teaching from the pulpit is never doctrine for the Church until it's published.

GTTA is one authoritative teaching manual, and there are other works I could cf.

I'm sorry, what is GTTA? If it's published by the LDS Church it would indeed be doctrine (unless it says otherwise).

There really isn't much in the way of past doctrines in any official sense. But I see no harm in discussing say BY's Adam Sr/Jr theory so long as one realizes it isn't doctrine and never was.

LoL, are you kidding me?

No.

Then what is and what is not LDS doctrine?

That which is published by the Church and in context (it doesn't say otherwise: the Bible Dictionary for example).

Are you telling me that of all the LDS doctrine taught, not much of it is official?

All of the doctrine in our systematic theology is published. Here is a fair sampling of it:

http://institute.LDS.org/courses/

It is by no means exhaustive.

What were these men teaching and writing, unofficial guess's. so much for the restoration? How can you claim to restore something without being clear what the restoration data is?

Indeed. The doctrines are clearly published.

BC, is the law of eternal progression a LDS core/essential doctrine? Has it been taught in a "official sense?"

I'm pretty sure it has. Chapter 47 of the Gospel Principles manual is one place where I remember seeing it.

BY never once said anything about Adam sr or jr, but that is for another post. If you care to start a thread on it I would love to respond.

BY certainly never taught an Adam-God theory. I think it's pretty well proven that what he did teach was an Adam Sr/Jr theory in that it's the only really detailed explaination that assumes BY agreed with other LDS doctrine and takes other BY statements not in the JoD into account.

FairWiki has some good to say about it
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God

Here it is:
http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I was actually coming up with it independently and then found Watson's explaination.

Of course either way, Adam Sr/Jr or Adam-God, such was never doctrine so it's all moot when trying to establish what LDS doctrine is.

There's been no evolution of doctrine as far as I can tell

Huhh, I thought you said ..."There really isn't much in the way of past doctrines in any official sense."

That's right. Little 'past' doctrine means little change. There is not much to look back on and say "That was doctrine, but no longer".

Do you believe that God was once a man like you and me, and that he through obedience became a god and that man through following the same path can have all that your heavenly father has ( same power and nature).

Yes. God is a homo sapiens though I could accept something along the lines as illustrated in the Star Trek TNG episode 'The Chase'.

Whether you believe this or not, many LDS members do not.

Not very many comparatively. Such would be considered apostate or new in every circle of the Church.

GBH wasn't even sure of this,

That is not true. Try again.

yet it was clearly taught as authoritative core LDS doctrine.

It is indeed. But it's not something we emphasize in every lesson.

I believe the nature of God has evolved greatly over the years in LDS thought.

I don't think so. You might point to some new revelations in the early years of the restoration, but that's to be expected.

Blacks and the priesthood has evolved, I'm not even sure if today's leadership knows why the discriminated, but now they don't= evolution of a doctrine.

No change there either. The doctrine is the same. The Book of Abraham is still scripture. The only change is that now they can have the priesthood in mortality. A policy change. The doctrine remains that for a time, they were not allowed to have the priesthood.

The temple endowments are certainly evolving, as is the temple clothing.

But is the doctrine changing? I don't see any evidence of that.

The doctrine of the holy spirit vs holy ghost has evolved, or just ignored. do you believe they are one and the same in LDS thought?

How so? One of the keys to understanding doctrine is "of latest date". If two differing things are published, you take the latest date. Just because the LoF were removed well down the road doesn't mean there was a change in doctrine then.

The word of wisdom, which I would say is doctrine, are evolving.

The doctrine on what things are forbbiden has been added to yes. So what?

I would get grounded when I was a kid for drinking a coke, and yet many of my TBM LDS family pound red bulls like water.

Not evidence of a change in doctrine, just a change in personal attitudes towards it.

The Meat thing has certainly evolved.

I've detected no change. And what if that particular advice is pertinent to those particular conditions in the 19th century? In 1972(If I recall correctly) you have an Atkins-like Ensign article about eating at least some meat every day. You are behind the times my man.

These are just a few on the top of my head. You mentioned Homosexuality, i think women's rights go in that category.

No real changes in either that I can see. Maybe some policy changes. But no doctrinal changes.

And I also noticed that funeral potatoes are evolving, I was just up to Utah for a family passing and they were really runny, they sucked. But the green jello was good.

Change is not necessarily a bad thing. It's even implied in our systematic theology. However, you antiMormons persist in seeing changes where there are none and when there is change, you complain about it. How about trying to see if doctrinal changes really exist and if they are consistent?

[_Markk]

I responded to most of your answer but lost the post...bottom line I think you agree with me more that Dan on this topic. check this out...
http://www.archive.org/stream/gospelthr ... 7/mode/2up

This is a http for GTTA, tel me if this book is official LDS doctrine or not...read the preface/s

more later
MG

[_bcspace]

Can you cut and paste some of it here? I am not a member of that site. Just show me who the publisher is.

I see some editions on Amazon not published by the Church so judging by that it's not an official doctrinal work. I see a little on how it received some recommendations from other GA's. By that, it's not an official doctrinal work.

The Church has put some nondoctrinal works on it's shelves in the past such as the Miracle of Forgiveness and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, but they remain nondoctrinal.

[_Markk]

Can you cut and paste some of it here? I am not a member of that site. Just show me who the publisher is.

I see some editions on Amazon not published by the Church so judging by that it's not an official doctrinal work. I see a little on how it received some recommendations from other GA's. By that, it's not an official doctrinal work.

The Church has put some nondoctrinal works on it's shelves in the past such as the Miracle of Forgiveness and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, but they remain nondoctrinal.

It doesn't allow to cut and paste, but it is free to sign up and read on line. You can also look it up on Mormon wiki, for what that is worth to you. This work is arguably the single most in depth teaching manual that the church has ever published as a teaching manual, written under the supervision of Widtsoe, Benson, Callis, Richards and J. Fielding Smith. It was commissioned by the GA and Hunter was assigned to write this melk. teaching manual. If you have never heard of the book I suggest you read it. Again it is the teaching manual of the world war 2 generation and was used through to at least the late 50's if not the early 60's. It is core LDS theology at it's best.

[_Nightlion]

Our fundamental doctrines are entirely clear.

I wonder then if you could be so kind as to clarify LDS doctrines and fix my forty years of perplexity in regard to the basic gospel preached by Jesus Christ and ignored by all things LDS. Why is this skated over and not taught proficiently and the accomplishment of the same manifested in an manner that bespeaks competency? How is an imperceptible process not making more of less of it?

3 Nephi 11
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

And why does the LDS Church fail to admonish people to take no thought for their lives as they seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Do you not think Christ was giving us an needed admonition because it takes this degree of earnestness to attract the Father's will to draw us unto Christ?

Matthew 6:25, 33
25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
....
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

John 6
John 6: 44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

And if you are not Zion you are not mine. How is the LDS Church not hypocrite to this commandment of Jesus Christ? Has not the LDS Church fallen to own only the forms of godliness and denied the power thereof?

b for DCP x2