Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Misshalfway]

I am not saying we never taught it. I am saying we don't teach the speculative aspects of it as doctrine and that the lines where doctrine end and speculation begins are rather fuzzy.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands what I have been trying to say?

Perhaps I will go to the questions only thread too. They understand me there.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I am not saying we never taught it. I am saying we don't teach the speculative aspects of it as doctrine and that the lines where doctrine end and speculation begins are rather fuzzy.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands what I have been trying to say?

Perhaps I will go to the questions only thread too. They understand me there.

I understand, Miss. You're awesome.

HiJolly

[MobyMule]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

I would have to agree if we want to limit our own edification then it would be hard to comprehend anything that is given.

Very true. We have to be open to continuing truth and the promptings of the Spirit. We must have a desire to continue to learn of God and his ways.

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

...
There are other non-doctrinal items I was also taught, such as God literally had relations with Mary. I KNOW this came straight out of “Mormon Doctrine,” as I remember seeing the book in the instructor’s hands. And frankly, my shock at the words he was saying was significant. But I also know it was not taught often; rather, I suspect the instructor was excited about receiving his MD, and was gleaning his lesson plan from the book. I've also wondered if he was instructed not to teach from it again, because there were no more shocks like that one. Of course, I'll never know for sure.

So, how could it be that the Garden Grover 5th ward, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, emphatically taught that God had once been a man, and that we could become Gods, yet there are so many people, including some here, who say they were never taught these things.

And for those who doubt me, I promise you this is what I was taught as a young child/woman in Church. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Yet so many others, here on the board, were never taught these beliefs. How is this possible?

Elphaba

Many members of the LDS Church continue to seek learning and understanding from books that are not in our canon. That may or may not be a good thing to do, depending possibly on the degree to which we give heed to the disclaimer that such books are not official LDS doctrine and that the author/s speaks for him/herself, and to the degree that doing so takes away from time we could have spent studying our canonized revelations directly.

A case in point is the well-known book (several versions) "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie formerly of the Twelve (now deceased) which I think is the book you are referring to.

According to the authors of a new book titled "David O. McKay and the Rise and Fall of Modern Mormonism" brother McConkie's book was never authorized by the First Presidency because they knew such a book written by a General Authority would indeed be considered authorititive even though it would contain on many topics only the opinions and understandings of the author, rather than revelation on the matter from the Lord.

Apparently two members of the First Presidency reviewed the book "Mormon Doctrine" and found more than a thousand incidences of exactly the above where an opinion was rendered but there was nothing revealed by the Lord on the matter. (E.g. evolution.)

Elder McConkie was a spiritual giant, there is no doubt about that, and I will always remember his final testimony in General Conference. But his book "Mormon Doctrine" is NOT in our canon and as such we will not be held accountable by God for what is written in it.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

4. As worthy men and women, we could progress to become a god, just like Heavenly Father, including having our own world to populate.

Elphaba

And the more obedient we were, the larger the planet we would have and the larger the planet, the more moons it would have.

Hence the name Mormon. Mormon = More Moons.

[Hemidakota]

MORMON = Mor Mon[y]

[richlittell]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

Sorry for the confusion. This is what I was responding to. No one here should suggest that JS is the "rock". So I guess I should have responded to richlittell. Oops.

LDS teaches that the "rock" is revelation -- no matter who it is receiving it. Of course in context of the scripture, it is speaking of the leaders of the Church. And we feel a leader cannot lead the Church if they don't have that 'rock'.


HiJolly

Joseph smith is not "the rock?" I thought he said of himself that he was a "rolling stone."

Really though, I was only making a comparison between Joseph and Peter, not declaring any sort of doctrine that "the rock" was Joseph Smith and not revelation.

[richlittell]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hello richlittell,

I would stand by my original contribution in this matter, If there was a need to restore ( 1600 years or so down the road ) then it seems rather obvious IMHO that Jesus' words that HIS CHURCH would never fall would lead me to the only conclusion there is,

...

because the very creator of HIS CHURCH, JESUS, BUILT IT, GAVE THE AUTHORITY AND GRACE TO SUSTAIN IT AND PROMISED US ALL IT WOULD NEVER FALL AND WOULD STAND UNTIL THE VERY END.

You missed my whole point. You are speaking from a view based on scriptural interpretation, which is precisely why I said (my point):

was there an apostasy somewhere in these two thousand years since the time of Christ. I would say that no one can really prove this philosophically, scripturally or historically -- I mean neither the LDS position nor the Catholic church's position, although both sides, of course, would say their is scriptural and historical evidence to strengthen their conclusion.

Of course, from our perspective, we know these things by revelation, but that argument won't hold for people who do not believe in revelation.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

Taught by the Church, or taught by members of the Church?

Hi Hi,

If it were any belief other than this one, I would agree with you. But in this case, the belief that God was once a man, and man could become a God (hereafter called “belief”), was an integral part of innumerable talks I heard at every pulpit, fireside, Seminary, Institute and Gospel Doctrine class. I even remember a roadshow that portrayed the belief, alongside the pioeers.

If someone is reading from Mormon Doctrine, that's not taught by the Church. That's some cowboy member being -- well, a cowboy. (not intending to insult cowboys)

I think I was not clear about this. It was only a one-time thing with this particular instructor, where he used information from the book to teach how Mary became pregnant by relations with God. But I don’t recall seeing the book in any other lessons.

In fact, I share your belief about the book. That’s why I have no problem telling whomever that the Mary/God claim was never an official doctrine of the Church, though MD was not the only reference to this.

However, there is a distinct difference between his one class, and my entire Church experience with the belief.

Yup. Me too.

Oh good, so I’m not crazy.

I agree, except the 'world' business. I was taught that God handled the entire universe. Maybe that was an Arizona thing.

I honestly don’t know, though I doubt it was just an Arizona thing. I would concede I am probably wrong on part of that point. However, that should not be used to dismiss what I do remember. (You don’t do this.)

I know what I was taught at the time.

Aw, Elph, it was before Correlation, ya know? I totally relate to what you're saying, though. It WAS taught in just this way back in the 60's and 70's. Along with not reading non-mormon books and sources, which I've totally violated!

Okay, thank you. I feel better now, as I know I’m not having flashbacks of someone else’s life.

Hari Krishna! Hari Hari! Hari Rama!

Airports are just not the same anymore without them, are they?

Thanks Hi!

Elphaba

[Vanhin]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine. Anyone else who wants to say different, I would caution them to seek out the Holy Ghost for a confirmation then deny what was given by him.

Hey Hemidakota,

I respectfully disagree. If Joseph Smith said something that is binding doctrine upon members of the Church, then we would find the doctrine in our current edition of the Standard Works. Not everything that is said by Joseph Smith or any other prophet is to be considered doctrine of this Church. I guess from time to time we have to repost this from the Church's Newsroom. Ceeboo, I think you should read this too, so you can be less confused by the various points of view on these forums.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)

Though that statement was prepared mainly for public commentators, I think it's important for members to understand as well. It's really quite simple to me. If it is the doctrine of this Church, then show me from the scriptures, and then I am certain that the Holy Ghost will confirm it.

There are doctrine and principles that Joseph could not give to the Saints due to their spiritual immaturity. This comes by personal revelation for your own spiritual edification.

If there are such principles, that have not been given to the Saints by the process God has established, yet someone thinks they have received them and that they are authorized to teach them in such a public manner, as these forums, then I would be concerned about that.

I would caution against anyone thinking that they have received something by way of revelation that goes beyond what is taught by the Church as doctrine. The Preach My Gospel manual cautions that we should compare the inspiration that we receive with the scriptures and teachings of the living prophets. We must also be certain that our feelings are consistent with our calling or assignment. (http://broadcast.lds.org/Missionary/...17_eng_011.pdf)

President Boyd K. Packer counseled:

“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.

I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).

All of that said, I don't believe there were many things that Joseph Smith taught that could not be backed up by scripture. It is the various interpretations and specualtions of his teachings, that go beyond what we have received as doctrine, that I think should concern us.

Regards,
Vanhin