Uncomfortable Doctrine

[candyprpl]

Originally Posted by Vanhin

Howdy

What was your experience like when you prayed about the Church? Do you mind sharing the story?

Regards,
Vanhin

Well, it's kind of a long story -- if you go to my profile, I have it posted as my conversion story. I got my confirmation about the Church before I actually prayed about it -- it's explained in my story. Everything came together for me -- a peace that I've never felt before. A comfort that I've never experienced before. I told my sisters (who have been members many years) that I feel like I've always known these things. They just smiled because they knew what I meant by that.

Originally Posted by richlittell

CeeBoo,

Don't let these lifelong Mormons get you down.
I'm a convert to the LDS church and very well understand that other denominations have difficulty with Joseph Smith, and prophets, and revelation and restoration.
We (LDS) claim the need to have constant revelation, while other denominations see no need for it because they have the ultimate, the testimony of Jesus Christ through the Bible. If Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses why could he not just as well have fulfilled all the prophets too? Jesus Christ pretty much gave us the formula for good living and most importantly salvation, any thing more or less than this seemed, well cultish to me before I converted. I mean, come on, a man saying he is a prophet of God? And if some man outside our (LDS) church said he was a prophet of God, what would we Mormons think? We would think that poor man was wacko. It's a tough doctrine.

So how do we know if a man is a prophet? Beats me, inspiration I suppose, but many have prayed and not felt such inspiration. The scriptures say by their fruits you shall know them. So I suppose we could look at that too. But that's not always convincing either.

For me, it was just a need to know more. The Christian doctrines of the several denominations I belonged to simply failed to answer most questions that I had personally about spiritual matters. Why must people who have never heard the gospel burn in hell if God is truly a loving and merciful God? How could a good man who is not a Christian burn in hell while those who are "saved" Christians but not actually good people go to heaven? Why must children burn in hell if they aren't baptized? Exactly what really did happen in those three days after Christ died and before he was resurrected? How can God be three individuals and one at the same time, is he spirit or body? And so forth and so on... Seems the only church doctrines that satisfactorily answered all my questions, after years of study, was the LDS church. And although the Bible doesn't "prove" LDS doctrine, it doesn't disprove it either, so from my perspective the LDS doctrine is still in harmony with the Bible.

For me, I back tracked from there. If these things are true (and I never felt a greater peace in my life than I did when I learned these doctrines), and if the teachings only lead to peace, love, understanding and good, then they must be from God. And where do we get those teachings? From the Book of Mormon and the D&C, (those things the Bible doesn't directly answer). And from where came the B.O.M and D&C.? Joseph Smith. Well, then I started to believe that he was at least an intelligent, spiritual, and inspired man. But wait... what is an inspired man who reveals spiritual truths to those seeking real answers to difficult spiritual questions? That would be a prophet, and that would be ...... Joseph Smith. (And to be honest, from my background, I didn't like that, but as I continued to pray and truly study out all the answers to my unanswered spiritual questions with an open mind to the LDS perspective, after having tried all others, I finally gained a testimony of those teachings, and the source thereof.

Of course, I won't expect you or anyone to believe me. I just like having the chance to tell my own journey.

cheers

Hello richlitell,
( your not the comedian I am thinking of are you ?)

Thank you for sharing your journey with me.

I noticed you answered all your questioins, so I will simply offer a few words with you.

I am not sure ( no need to tell me ) which several Christain groups you have been with to imply the " all those people will burn in hell " or " Christains that are not good people will go to heaven" but what I can offer you is that none of the comments you suggest have validity in my religion.

It is not a matter of me believing you, rather I do appreciate you contributing your journey to this.

God bless,
Carl

[Snow]

Originally Posted by fiona84

Hi everyone,

Those who know me on here know that I came back to church 'full force' last year after being only semi-active for a few years.

I a convert, a college student who converted when I was 13.

Yesterday at sacrament meeting we had a high council speaker and he made me really uncomfortable. He kept calling God/Heavenly Father just 'Father' and while that sounded odd to me, what really bothered me what how he kept referencing us becoming gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

I have always had a hard time with this doctrine. When he spoke, I felt awful. I felt uncomortable, like a jolt of annoyance shot through me. I saw a few people give eachother 'looks', as well.

To make it worse I had my nonmember, investigating husband with me who has no idea what any of that means.

I left in a bad mood after Relief Society. That doctrine is really a testimony killer for me. I just cannot believe that we will become gods and goddesses, it seems really blasphemus and counter to what is taught in the scriptures.

Are you aware that it was in fact a pervasive teaching/belief in the ancient Christian Church? The teaching was ubiquitous and summarized by the quote: "God became man so that man might become a god." (St. Athanasius)

I think you are simply wrong about being contrary to the scriptures. The LDS understanding may not be explicitly stated in the scriptures but it certainly isn't contradicted and is strong implied by a multitude of verses.

I hate having these doubts about god-hood, and I have prayed and prayed but I cannot feel the spirit when praying about this.

To make it worse I always think of Pres. Hinkley saying "I don't know that we teach that" when asked about the godhood doctrine on Larry King. It seems like even he was uncomfortable with that!

I sincerely would like some help with this. What do you guys think? When was this first taught and how can it be compatable with us believing in God and Christ? Maybe some history will make me feel better?

ETA: When do members first get taught this? I never heard a thing about it until I was past YW, and that bothers me. It certainly wasn't mentioned when I got the discussions and the whole 'secrecy' about it makes me dislike it even more.

You are misstating what President Hinckley said. He wasn't responding to whether we, like the ancient Church, believe in deification. He was responding to a question about whether God was once a man and his answer was absolutely correct. As a member of 40 years, I've have never been taught that by the Church. I am aware of the origin of the thought and aware of the speculation but simply put, we don't teach it.

I have no idea what you are talking about... "secrecy." I can think of lots of complex theology that isn't served up to investigators on a platter but the Church has massive amount of scholarship, lesson material, inspirational writings and talks on the matter. If you need resources, Let me know and I point you in the direction.

Originally Posted by Snow

Are you aware that it was in fact a pervasive teaching/belief in the ancient Christian Church? The teaching was ubiquitous and summarized by the quote: "God became man so that man might become a god." (St. Athanasius)
.

Hello Snow.

To add another perspective to this lively discussion, If I may.

" God became man so that man might become god " Is a very long and honestly highly debated subject. Rather than start a whole new " debate " on this forum ( not my desire or intention ) I will humbly offer a short version "Catholic perspective" for consideration.

Catholics believe Christ is the head of his Church and we are the mystical body of that Church ( Christ and his Church together make up " whole Church " ) or The Church is one with Christ. We share in HIS DIVINITY when we partake in the Holy Eucharist and become divine in Christ but our nature remains human.

Additionaly, to try and be clear. " God became man " part ( from our perspective ) is that God indeed truly became man ( Jesus ).

At any rate, I thought I would share another perspective.

God bless,
Carl

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I do not have much difficulty believing we shall be come god-like. After all, we will be glorified, and we will rule and reign with Christ. However, can I expect to some day have subjects that worship me? To me, such a belief would cross the line. Even if I remain a subject to my Heavenly Father, and continue to worship him throughout eternity, if I also believe I shall receive worship...that seems blasphemous to me. At least one LDS member has publically posted that such is unthinkable, and seems blasphemous too. Perhaps this is an area of speculation, but many non-LDS believe this is standard LDS teaching--that members expect to become Gods.

With respect, I think that your use of the word "subjects" points perhaps to a difference of understanding about the nature of God the Father.

Yes, if we think of God as being similar to a temporal king or ruler or dictator, even though we may consider Him to be benevolent, we would, perhaps because of our revulsion towards pride and arrogance, think it repulsive that we would ever want to be a God. Yet we strive to become like Him.

But if we can grasp an understanding that God the Father is literally the Parent of our spirit bodies, and we are literally His sons and daughters, then we can perhaps understand that we are not "subjects" of God anymore than our earthly children are subjects to us as the parents of their physical bodies.

It helps me understand God, the universe, and everything much better when I consider all that to be just a family affair. In our earthly roles as father, mother, sons, daughters, we are approximating as closely as we possibly can on earth the order of heaven - we are practicing for the time when we too will be grownups.

God's commandments are not the dictates of a king, they are the instructions of a loving Parent who wants us to come Home to Him and knows that if we will only obey those instructions we will find our way back. In obedience to His counsel we walk the strait and narrow path that leads most securely back to where we came from.

God is not God to anyone except His own children!

That's why there is only one God for us, only one natural Parent.

Why shouldn't we strive to grow up and become like our Father in every way, including after an enormous amount of instruction and learning, being authorized to have our own "eternal increase", our own CHILDREN?


Below is a link to more information on this subject:

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Gods - Plural

.

[MormonMama]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

I am not sure it would be fair or accurate to imply we ( Catholics and LDS ) believe in the same Jesus Christ ??

But we do. We both believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. We may not always believe the same details about him, but there is only one Christ and we both believe in that same one.

To suggest the " early church " fell into apostasy and in the same sentence to add that "particulary since the Protestent reformation " seems to be a HUGE contradiction in itself.

I'm sorry, I do not see the contradiction. Could you clarify?

Originally Posted by ceeboo

What I do not agree with is that those cautions had to do with the " Church " that Jesus built on the " rock of Peter " in which Jesus himself said would prevail over ALL.

If you believe it has not prevailed ( went into Great Apostasy ), you would have to say Jesus was wrong or was not telling the truth.

No, we don't believe Jesus was wrong or that he lied. The church will prevail over all eventually (one could argue that it is already in that process). Jesus never said that an apostasy would not occur. And keep in mind that all promises from God are predicated upon the faithfulness of humanity. God has revoked his promises many times when mankind has not held up their end of the agreement.

And as has already been pointed out, the "rock" was not Peter, but revelation.


I'm sorry, it looks like I'm picking on you! I certainly don't mean to. I've really enjoyed your very thoughtful and intelligent replies.

For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and I believed in an apostasy before I ever learned anything about the LDS church. I got this idea from the scriptures in the Bible and a comparison of God's dealings with people today (i.e. no prophets) compared to Biblical times (prophets). That was before I knew that there is a living prophet today, of course.

[a-train]

It was Peter, James, and John that restored the Holy Priesthood by ordaining Joseph Smith.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by justamere10

But if we can grasp an understanding that God the Father is literally the Parent of our spirit bodies, and we are literally His sons and daughters, then we can perhaps understand that we are not "subjects" of God anymore than our earthly children are subjects to us as the parents of their physical bodies.

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

[PapilioMemnon]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

Just to clarify, we do believe we are His literal spirit children (Numbers 27:16), not that we were begotten of Him in the flesh. The ONLY one who was, was our Savior & Lord, Jesus Christ.

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

Right, it's a difference of opinion/understanding about the nature of God.

Latter-day Saints of course do not believe that all of God's children will 'grow up' to become as He is anymore than the owner of a corporation would find that each of his ten children would qualify to be chairperson of the board or CEO. There's that little matter of mortal freedom to choose among opposites such as good and evil, light and darkness, virtue and vice etc. each accummulating choice adding to the probability of eternal consequences.

There is a great deal of controversy over when life (soul/spirit/ghost in the machine) enters an unborn human body. In your view, at what point in lineal time (as we commonly discuss it) does God create those spirits? And, because such a discussion would be controversial, how could we know for sure?