Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Elphaba]

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.

I agree the Church (correlation committee, and whoever else has to approve the teaching publications), does not teach the speculative aspects today, and that the lines have become fuzzy.

However, amongst those in the pews, there wasn't any speculation when I was a child/young woman. The fuzzy lines didn't exist then. Today they exist because people question what used to be just assumed as doctrine. But this is a new phenomenon, comparatively.

I clearly remember the belief, simply and thoroughly, taught to me as a child/young woman. And I have no doubt there are innumerable Saints who still believe this, with no speculation about it. This includes my mother.

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

I did say: "Then others come into threads like this one, saying they were never taught this."

I never thought of you in this way as you have clearly said you know it was taught. I apologize for not being clear as to who I meant, as I can see anyone on the thread may have thought I meant him/her.

I simply wanted to explain my experience with this when I was a child/young woman, as I do not understand how someone could never have been taught this. It is so contrary to my experience.

To be clear, I am only referring to anyone who says he/she was never taught about this.

Sorry for the confusion.

Elphaba

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

MORMON = Mor Mon[y]

That's why we have a Profit at the head of our church.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by justamere10

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.

Yes, I already know all of this.

When I mentioned Mormon Doctrine, I was referring to one specific instance that had nothing to do with the teaching that God was once a man, etc.

Elphaba

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by Vanhin

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.



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

Good counsel, thank-you.

[Jenamarie]

I'll agree with Elphaba, that I was most certainly taught the whole "we'll become gods" (small g) growing up in the church. I even remember talking with the kids in one of my Primary classes about what kinds of creatures we would create for our planets (lots of fairies and unicorns and dinosaurs ) And the whole "God was once a man..." thing was mentioned MANY times in my years growing up in the church. I'm actually quiet surprised that it's now considered a "speculative" doctrine.

(but then, maybe I don't have a difficult time understanding how God could have once been a man AND have always been God. The whole "one Eternal round" thing I think answers that. God's time as a man WAS NOT his "beginning", He's always been who He Is, just as we've always been who we are, and niether He nor US are any less divine because we've been human. It comes with the territory, IMO.)

[Vanhin]

I think it's reasonably clear that our doctrine is that God the Father, like his Son Jesus Christ, obtained a body by entering mortality, and is himself a resurrected and glorified Man (D&C 130:22, John 5:19). In fact, he is the Man of Holiness, and Jesus Christ is the Son of Man. (Moses 6:57).

It is equally clear, that our doctrine is that mankind, can become like God, and that this feat is obtainable because of our Heavenly Fathers plan for us, and the merits of Jesus Christ (John 17:20-24, D&C 132:20). This is the highest meaning of salvation, which latter-day saints call "Eternal Life", to know God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, which knowledge is only obtained by becoming like them (John 17:3).

We have always taught this in our curriculum, since it became doctrine, and we still do (See LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - The Great Plan of Salvation).

Those truths are not speculation.

Regards,
Vanhin

[bmy-]

I can't remember who said it for the life of me.. google turned up nothing.

'We passed the trial of persecution with flying colors. It's the trial of acceptance that worries me.' (paraphrase)

Sometimes I get the vibe that.. 'our church as a whole' is afraid of being different. Pushing towards mainstream Christianity and such.. i'm afraid that certain doctrines are being swept under the rug because they're controversial.

[justamere10]

Originally Posted by bmy-

I can't remember who said it for the life of me.. google turned up nothing.

'We passed the trial of persecution with flying colors. It's the trial of acceptance that worries me.' (paraphrase)

Sometimes I get the vibe that.. 'our church as a whole' is afraid of being different. Pushing towards mainstream Christianity and such.. i'm afraid that certain doctrines are being swept under the rug because they're controversial.

"And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you." D&C 82: 22

Doctrine and Covenants 82

I think the Prophet knows where the Lord is leading His Church. If the parable of the ten virgins is meant to be the members of the LDS Church, then even though we may lose half of our membership during the times of sifting because they didn't make enough right choices to be prepared, we will have gained the other 50%. Being in the limelight as we are now adds to our overall membership numbers.

These are great times to live, the fields are absolutely white ready to harvest. Why wait another hour to thrust in your sickle and reap? You can serve an unofficial mission right now from your own home, as an LDS Cyber Missionary.

[Nappaljarri]

The whole point of our existence is to become like God, this is the essence of the teachings of the church and the plan of Salvation. But, this concept like all doctrine can only be understood and accepted through personal testimony by the Holy Ghost. I think where peoples' concept of being like God gets construed is in mixing "Man's" philosophy of who or what they envisage God to be, with who our God actually is and the nature of "exaltation" (of which of course I have only one clue). And the nature of Godhood that we can understand is that exaltation is in a FAMILY context. Husband and Wife exalted together and creating spiritual bodies for their children for their eternal family. This is the purpose and nature of Godhood, not just sitting around with people/angels worshipping and singing praises.

I think if one reads D&C: 132 especially verse 19 and pray about it, the Holy Ghost can teach them about "eternal lives" and what it means.

[Moksha]

So with the deemphasis on becoming a God, could we assume an equal deemphasis on multiple celestial wives and planet populating?