In the interests of promoting some discussion I am going to try posting an interesting LDS authority quote on a regular basis. I will let the quotes speak for themselves and I do not plan on putting my views on the post itself, I will leave a comment with any thoughts I have or just leave you guys to do the same.
I will simply say that with many of these quotes, you will find they do not necessarily represent Mormons beliefs today, however they are from people the LDS church will have considered to be a Prophet Seer and Revelator at some point in the past and chances are they will form the foundation of some LDS belief today.
So here we go.
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346. Italics in original. See also Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 305).
Please leave your thoughts.
This to me backs up the assumption that the LDS teaching is that God was once a man just like the rest of us, it seems today this has shifted within the apologists and they say that God the Father was always some divine God like man.
However here Smith says God was a man just like we are, which would suggest to me a sinful, finite being.
When I read this one, I always think about how Mormons and Christians can’t even agree on the meaning of the first 4 words of the Bible. “In the beginning” has a different meaning as does the understanding of who God is. I have found over and over that we have no doctrinal common ground from the get-go.
Well you sure picked a doozy of a quote to begin with didn’t you!
Latter-day Saints will forever debate amongst themselves the meaning of this quote. For those who accept the teachings of this quote (and there is no requirement to), we generally agree that God the Father once dwelt on some kind of Earth in a mortal capacity. But after that the details differ in many respects. I’ve blogged about it before here:
http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/lds-views-of-gods-past/
Basically, there are four major options:
(A) There was never a time when God the Father was not fully divine. He was fully divine (and perfect) before his mortal experience, during his mortal experience, and after his mortal experience. He remains so today.
(B) There was a time when God the Father was not fully divine, but he became fully divine at some point prior to his mortal experience, remained divine throughout his mortality and is still divine to this day.
(C) God the Father was not divine prior to his mortality, but became divine as a mortal, and remains divine to this day.
(D) God the Father was not divine prior to his mortality, or during his mortality, but at some point after his mortality he became divine.
Hey James, I knew this one would be very familiar territory for you but thought it would be interesting for people who have not heard this before, and a good place to start there are certainly some interesting quotes to come.
From what I can see of quotes from various Authoritative LDS leaders option D seems like the one to go for. Do you know of any quotes or talks that would suggest otherwise that are not from apologists but LDS leaders?
Ann,
Many mainstream Christian scholars are beginning to realize that “In the beginning” doesn’t mean what Christians have traditionally thought it meant. Check out “The Lost World of Genesis One” by John Walton.
Bobby,
That isn’t something I’ve spent much time looking into. Why? Because, frankly, it wouldn’t matter. You see, any opinions given by individual leaders of the Church on matters that have not been revealed simply don’t carry any sort of official weight. For now, until more light and knowledge is handed down from the heavens, all (including the lowliest pew-sitter, and the Prophet of the LDS Church) are welcome to work out these mysteries the best they can with no obligation to adhere to any particular person’s opinions.
But if you’ve got a collection of statements from LDS leaders on this topic I suppose I might be a tiny bit interested in seeing them. I suppose some anti-Mormon ministry somewhere has probably gone to great lengths to dig up anything that could possibly be used in their arsenal on this issue. Please email them to me. Thanks.
Hey James I will get something out to you soon
It sounds like a sad state of affairs to be in if everyone has some opinion of the nature of God in your church and no one really knows. Yet in the apostasised Christian church everyone knows and has a good handle on the nature of God, you would think God would reveal this more clearly to the one true church on the face of the earth?
Thats a bit of a provokative comment i know but seriously the bible says eternal life is to know God. As a Christian my purpose and pursuit in life is to know God and love God more, to say that this issue of who He is, is anything but the most vital issue in existence is a serious problem. The God of the bible lifts up His glory and worth and power in all that He does, people who have dealings with Him are left with no doubt who He is, yet in Mormonism we just have a mass of contradictory quotes regarding who God is, from Him being Adam in Brigham Youngs eyes, Polygamous in some other leaders eyes and so on.
Bobby,
While Mormons may have differing opinions about the *history* of God, we don’t have differing opinions about the *nature* of God. Don’t conflate the two. Our difference in opinion are tantamount to Evangelicals disagreeing over whether Jesus was married or not. It simply doesn’t affect his nature. Whether God was always divine, or whether he became divine at some point, is not a game-changer and, for us, does not speak to his nature.
You’ll find a brief discussion of this topic in the post I linked to earlier.
Hey Cory thanks for your comment, it sounds like you will have differences in views to myself as well as the Mormons here, however you are totally welcome here and its good to have a different perspective.
Dane, I appreciate your thoughts and do appreciate that this is very deep to you and that this is your heartfelt belief about God. I am not going to go into a point by point response other than to say while you have explained your case well it still to me speaks of the LDS view of looking at God as though He is an exalted human, just like us but exalted. The issue here for me is that God is entirely distinctive from us and is the eternal creator of all way above us in every way. However your points do illustrate the “king follet theology” as i heard it described in a sunstone talk yesterday pretty well.
in your point 4 you illustrate this problem i have very well, talking about God or us growing up from our parents and becoming our own person etc, this brings God down to our level. One thing I wondered and please anyone reading feel free to answer is that I have heard many times LDS missionaries or others saying that regardless of how far they progress in the next life they will still be subject to and will worship the Father. Firstly is this right? And secondly if so does that mean its conceivable that Heavenly Father is still worshipping His Father? IF this is even a possibility the implications on the glory of God are massive, and again brings God down from being the almighty only true God worthy of all worship to just one in a conveyer belt of Gods that just happens to be ours.
James, I see the history of God as being entirely fundimental to His nature. If He was a sinful man (which if you go by King Follet theology etc He likely was) and then worked His way to exaltation with His wife and now rules over our world while still worshipping and subject to His God then this god (which I think only deserves a small g) is a world apart from the uncreated, eternal, speaking things into existence with just His word, creator of ALL things created.
Joseph Smith said in the same place the quote for this discussion “I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. (History of the Church p.305)
As far as Smith was concerned He was explaining what kind of being God is, which He knew and we know is an entirely different God from the bible, He said I will explain it from the bible, I had to search like mad to find where it was from the bible and then it was some very weak reference.
So back to the point James if God is a man who earned His way to godhood and is just following the same pattern of millions of other gods then he is just you and me who has worked hard and got a promotion. If He is the eternal great glorious God over all never created can do whatever He wills and has never been subject to anyone, then we have a different story altogether.
Bobby, thanks for posting this, and especially for not adding your opinions on it in the original post. I do value your opinion, but I find it more conducive to an agnostic discussion (using the term loosely) that the opinions remain in the comments, rather than be dictated in the original post. Good move.
Onto the quote. This is actually a topic I’ve been thinking about a fair bit lately, and I think (for once) I can summarize my current views pretty concicely. I submit them to you all as things to think about, rather than to comment on (since I think the former is far more valuable for everybody–especially for the person thinking), but if you wish to comment, I won’t object.
1) God is truly incomprehensible/utterly mysterious only to a closed mind. For a person to comprehend God, he must first consider that he DOES NOT comprehend God. This includes admitting to one’s self–internally and without rancor–that he may be utterly wrong about every one of his opinions and/or view about God and His nature. Furthermore, I present to you that we might not have anything close to a correct understanding of what we’ve read, and may not even be reading a book (or several books) with correct information, even for those who do understand it/them.
2) Earth is a metaphor. I put this to you as a topic to consider and think about. The Mormon Church believes this officially (as in things in earth are a type of things in heaven), but some members may not know, believe, of comprehend as much. We are born as idiots and helpless. We grow in mind, body, and spirit as we get older, and such growth largely depends on how others treat us (parents providing for and teaching the kids, etc.), as well as upon our own choices–such as nobody else can make for us. Some things, should we take them in–be they sins, poisons, misinformation, or whatever else–can actually hinder or reverse our growth; such is the same in heavenly growth. We can choose charity, humility, acts of kindness, and similar; or we can choose malice, idleness, pride, or any number of spiritual “poisons.” I postulate that we all start above “zero.” We are, after all, God’s own children, and he is certainly not an idle parent. Would he have sent our spirits to earth without teaching us anything at all beforehand? I liken our time here as the awkward, rebellious adolescent years of our spiritual growth. We can grow or destroy ourselves during this time.
3) If we are truly “spirit of God’s spirit” (paraphrasing from “flesh of flesh”), then we don’t simply have the possibility of understanding Him, but the absolute, and undeniable ABILITY and OBLIGATION to understand Him. Do we not seek to understand our own earthly parents…and to what end? Do we not become much like them–adopting their good qualities and rejecting their bad ones, to the best of our ability? If we truly are the children of a Deity, then we have an absolute obligation to learn to be like Him when we “grow up;” otherwise, can we truly “honor our Father?” Do not children grow up to become equal–in physical stature, ability to perceive, reason, learn, understand, etc.–to their parents–should they choose to do so and make that effort? There are, of course those with disabilities, etc., but I don’t believe that this will hinder anyone in eternity.
4) Following the reasoning that children grow up to be like their parents, why WOULDN’T God have grown up to be like HIS Parents? We read and are told that there is but one God. I believe this. It is, however, relevant to ask the question, “what is a God?” Once we have grown up and left home, and have married and started our own families, living in our own homes, do our parents still own our dwellings, our livelihoods, our very possessions and responsibilities? Do we not create our own paths, lives, responsibilities, and indeed, our own sovereignties at that point? Will our parents ever again have true authority over us to say, “now you have to do the dishes, or you’re grounded,” or “you have to raise your children THIS way, or else I’ll put you on time out?” When our parents move onto their next phase of spiritual progression (via physical death), do we necessarily hear from them until we’ve gotten there, too? Therefore, I present to you that a “God” is a master of a universe, or possibility even a reality or complete set of dimensions–including all that can be included in such a realm. His forbears have moved onto their own states of glory–their own kingdoms and paths of spiritual development, and our Father–our God–is the ONLY one with any true authority over our reality. Who is to say that He CANNOT ever contact His parents or relatives, should he choose to? Is he truly an orphan and a hermit? Maybe He is, but I doubt it. How could a Person with such boundless compassion have no family of His own, before showing such compassion to His children? I submit to you that His own Family, his Eternal Parents, taught him well, as did their Parents before them. If we are to believe that he truly understands us–pains, sorrows, joys, pleasures, and all–then we are obligated–by way of knowing our own future selves and the paths we should follow–to ask, “how?” and “why?” Therefore, I submit to you that He knows them because He, Himself has experienced them.
5) Finally, if we don’t ask, then we CANNOT know! I’m not just referring to prayer and careful, quiet listening for answers, although I firmly believe that that is important; rather I’m referring to asking it of OURSELVES! Ask it of the reality in which we exist! Ask it of every person who is willing to discuss it with you, and most importantly, CONSIDER THAT THEY MAY BE RIGHT, EVEN IF IT MEANS YOU ARE WRONG! I’ve found that in my own life, the moment I decide that I know an absolute truth, and that I can’t POSSIBLY be wrong about it, then at that moment, I have become an imbecile–a slave to my own pride and hubris–and that I am no longer capable of spiritual growth. Is this true for us all? I think so, but it’s meaningless for me to tell you this unless you internalize not the answer, but the QUESTION. I’ve found that in the path to spiritual enlightenment, in any form–whether via a specific religion, a general belief system, or a vague conceptual desire for growth–answers don’t get us very far in terms of actually gaining spiritual light and knowledge; it’s the QUESTIONS that are most important, and will ultimately teach us the nature of God and the universe–the reality that we live in, and every reality that has been, and is to come. Of all the questions we can ask, however, I find that truly, the most important ones start with the word, “why,” with “how” being the next best. Despite the proclivities of almost every religion on the earth, questions involving “who,” “what,” and “when” are all but irrelevant, except for their application in better understanding “why” and “how.” Those other three questions might (not always) tell us what is and has been, but they are incapable–by themselves–of helping us to UNDERSTAND any of that, much less learn and COMPREHEND what is to come, WHY it is so, and HOW we can change it according to our own free will and desires.
If you will all permit me one request after you’ve read this, then please THINK ABOUT this stuff for at least a day or two before making any attempt to reply. None of what I’ve just written will have any meaning if it is not thoroughly considered, for at least a little while, before the readers seek to teach me and others (i.e. give their own opinions) what they believe to be true about all of this. After all, why ask any thought-provoking question if the hearers/readers will not use it to provoke their own thoughts? While my illnesses prevent me from spending too much time on any particular thing, I’ll make every effort to carry on a meaningful and thought-provoking–perhaps even profound–discussion with anybody who indulges this request. I hope you find growth from this process–regardless of whether you ever agree with me on these things; in this case, the journey is of great value, and the destination of very little.
Best wishes.
–Dane
Bobby,
I’m still waiting for Joseph Smith to “show it from the Bible”. Where is any of this in the Bible? I certainly haven’t seen it. It’s just another “idea” that sprang to his mind. Mormons should believe his word over any apologist. He said this very straight forward and you can bet that the Mormons sitting in the pew listening to it in his day took it exactly the way he meant it. It doesn’t matter to me that now days Mormons and Mormon apologists alike try to spin or twist it to make it more believable or to make it say something it doesn’t. He said it this way and he meant it this way. He’s the founder of the LDS religion and all LDS people should be heeding his words, as is, the way he meant them. Is it a sin to try and change what the founder of Mormonism says? Mormons can’t get into the Celestial Kingdom without his consent right? How do you think Joseph Smith feels about those who try to twist his words? Just a thought.
First off, I feel I should say, I am an Atheist (well, tooth-fairy Agnostic if you wanna get cute about it ;)), and I have known Dane for many, many years (14 now I think!). We have had a myriad of discussions and, to my recollection, never an ‘argument’ or an ill word between us on this subject. Something I cannot say for literally any other Theist I have known personally and I commend him on his open mind.
The previous discussions and assertions bring me to two questions:
1) If there is any consideration that God was at one time not divine, or not fully divine, does this not run in direct opposition to creationism? For how could God cause the entirety of ‘creation’, before He had the ability to cause ‘creation’?
Which brings me to my second question:
2) Is the thesis of your commentary, Dane, that we do not know, and that that is okay?
You ponder and postulate many ideas as to the state of God, but conceed that it may be impossible to know fully, at least at this “phase of spiritual progression”. This leads to the idea that, although we will NEVER cease the pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding, “the moment (we) decide that (we) know an absolute truth, and that (we) can’t POSSIBLY be wrong about it, then at that moment, (we) have become an imbecile–a slave to (our) own pride and hubris–and that (we are) no longer capable of spiritual growth.”
This, my friends, is precisely what I, an Atheist/Strong Agnostic believe. We simply have differing paths of travel.
Cory,
In Mormonism, God is not the creator of matter because matter is thought inherently exist. God instead is the ultimate manipulator and organizer of matter…..though he need not be the only being who has
Mastered this power. So it doesn’t matter if God has always been fully divine or not.
Kate,
It isn’t in the Bible. That’s how the principle of continuing revelation works (which happens to be a biblical principal).
As you might expect, Bobby, I have some issues with some of your claims. But I’m out of town right now and unable to engage in this discussion at the moment. Perhaps I will find some spare time later, or in a couple days.
James,
Yes, but he said “that God the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible” implying that it is in the Bible. Where? He didn’t say that he would show it from “continuing revelation”. Nice try though.
James,
Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I revealed ignorance through assumption in treating Mormons as stock Creationists. After some additional reading, I feel I have a slightly more nuanced understanding of the concept. So, based on your previous comment, am I to understand that Mormons are polytheists? Or potential polytheists? Or would that outcome amount to more to the idea of individual fingers on a hand? I sense that the idea of eternal divinity WOULD be a central concept because if He was NOT always divine, and He had “Mastered this power” at a later time, that would seem to imply that their was a chance that he would NOT have “Mastered this power”. Then, would there be no “God”? And if the response is that He was guided or somehow influenced His Earthly form to ENSURE divinity, it would follow that he is NOT God, but the guiding force would be such.
I hope I am not hijacking this conversation. I feel I am still on-topic, although my incomplete knowledge of the subject matter may slow down the conversation a bit. Although, I suspect, you guys don’t mind terribly sharing your views with a non-believer ;).
Cory,
You bring up some good points. I for one love conversation from all walks of life. It is so interesting to see how others think and feel and how they come to the opinions that they have. Please continue to post here, I for one am interested in why you are a non believer and what you believe about not only Christianity and Mormonism, but religion in general.
Kate,
I suppose, without writing a small essay, I could sum it up thusly: Asking someone why they are a non-believer is like asking them why they are not a baseball player. None of us are born with any innate knowledge of baseball. We must be told of it. Some try it and are repelled, some are ambivalent but some are exhilarated and fulfilled. Born in a vacuum, it is inconceivable that someone would spontaneously create baseball exactly as it exists and has evolved in civilization. This tells me that baseball is not an innate constant of the universe, but a construct of our increasingly complex and evolving minds.
I must also at this point reiterate my underlying approach to life: I don’t know, and that’s ok. Therefore I hope any remarks I make are not EVER seen as absolute, concrete opinions. Everything is up for grabs.
I, of course, mean no disrespect in comparing something so meaningful as religious convictions to something as trivial as baseball directly, but only to evidence the point that, to me, it is apparent that they are constructed by ourselves, and do not exist independently.
In my experience, religion is generally the attempted reconciliation of the two parts of our brains. There is, undeniably, a large portion of our minds that acts of it’s own accord. The “reptile” brain. The sub-conscious. The instinct. Then there is the thing that sets us apart from every other known creature: self awareness. Consciousness. How we came to be “conscious” and self-aware is, to me, the grandest mystery in the universe. We receive messages and signals from the sub-conscious, “reptile” part of our brains and our consciousness is forced to make sense of them in any way it can.
The ancients NEEDED to know where the Sun went at night, so a God must have eaten it. They NEEDED to know why their crops failed one year, so they looked for a correlation. Not a causation mind you, but a correlation. As our minds and civilizations have evolved, we have become increasingly adept at taking what our senses have perceived and matching it with a part of our sub-conscious brain. If it feels good to the instinctual, sub-conscious part of our minds, it reinforces it as truth, whether it actually is or not.
I suppose, in conclusion I can say this: The mind is capable of INCREDIBLE feats. Feelings of Heavenly revelation to suicidal troughs of depression to straight up hallucinations. We have all seen other, non-Christian religious believers in fits of divine ecstasy. Do you believe that their experience of revelation is any less than yours? Do you believe that they are faking, or that only your feelings are as strong and everyone else is feeling a lesser severity of revelation? Or could it be that every person has their own experiences in life in a chaotic journey from cradle to grave, and we are all taking it in and trying to make sense of things the best each of us can?
Religion fills in the blanks.
Cory,
Thank you for explaining your beliefs to me. It’s interesting. I do believe that every person has their own experiences in life and that we are all taking it in and trying to make sense of things the best each of us can. Thankfully we have a manual to live by (The Bible). While I appreciate and respect your thoughts and feelings, I’m grateful to have a God who I know loves me. I can’t imagine going through life without the comfort, love and Grace of my Savior. Does this make me superior to anyone else? Absolutely not. Do I think that I am 100% correct in everything that I think at this moment? No. I am constantly learning new things. I do however think that the Bible is 100% the word of God, and that we can’t just go willy nilly through it picking a verse here or a verse there and creating a whole doctrine around it that is absolutely not Biblical, and then claiming it’s Christianity. I also don’t think that we can create a doctrine in our own heads and try to convince people it’s in the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. I’d like to comment on something that you said:
“If it feels good to the instinctual, sub-conscious part of our minds, it reinforces it as truth, whether it actually is or not.”
Christians do not use feelings as a way to judge truth. That is an LDS teaching.
thanks for responding! I appreciate it.
A teaching that I think is incorrect. The Bible tells us not to trust our own heart, the heart is deceitful above all things and that he who trusts in his own heart is a fool. I also believe the old saying that “If we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for anything.” Anyways,
Thanks, everyone–especially Cory–for posting. I’m glad that we’re having a kind and insightful discussion on this! So often, we theists (and sometimes others) tend to simply repeat preconceived prejudices instead of actually trying to hear what the other person is saying and giving it some real thought; I’m glad that it’s different this time. Thanks for taking the time to think about this.
I think that I should first point out that I absolutely do believe that we can and will understand God if we’re willing to. So, I’m not advocating any concept of God as being fully “mysterious” or “incomprehensible,” but rather that we should keep looking for more truth about Him, while keeping an open mind. I believe I’ve found some such truth, but I yet refrain from complete judgement on most, or even all of it, since I have yet to reach a point where I can meet Him for myself, and see Him “eye to eye,” as is written in the scriptures. (As I understand it, “seeing Him eye to eye” refers to becoming enough like Him, through our own personal choices, that we can understand Him by virtue of being so similar–at least so far as our actions and consciences are concerned–ourselves.) It’s also worth noting at this point (for those who don’t know this) what we, in the Church, view to be the definition of “one God.” We believe that “one God” is comprised of what we refer to as the “Godhead,” consisting of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. The Father and Jesus are supreme beings–people–of flesh, bones, and spirit, whereas the Holy Ghost (a.k.a. “The Spirit”–note the capitals–or “Holy Spirit”) is a person of only spirit, which allows him to dwell in us when we allow Him to. The term God can refer to all of these persons collectively, or simply to one of them. Most commonly, it refers to the Father, but can also refer to the others. Jesus is also sometimes referred to as the Father in scriptures, in the way of his adoption of us and our spiritual debts through His Atonement–the sacrifice of body and spirit that he performed in Gethsemane and upon the cross. These three individuals are referred to as “one God” because they are completely united with one another in purpose, and are of the same mind in all things; they are considered a God due to their station as our ultimate Mentors and co-creators. Different religious sects view these doctrines and scriptures differently, so I’m speaking from a Mormon point of view in this matter.
I’m quite bad at reciting chapter and verse, although I can usually recall and (decently) understand the meanings of passages, both individually and together. I’ll try to cite my sources when I’m able to find them:
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.46-50?lang=eng#45
http://lds.org/liahona/1998/03/the-father-son-and-holy-ghost?lang=eng
Cory, on the subject of creationism and where God would have gotten His power, the Mormon Church believes that, as James kindly pointed out, matter–the most basic building blocks of all things (referred to as “the elements” in the 1800s Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) book, but which we might refer to as sub-elemental particles or energy today)–are eternal. God neither creates nor destroys them. I suspect that this was something of a surprise to hear for most people when this book was written, since this was before Einstein’s day, and before most people were even fully literate. (This reinforces the idea that this book proceeded from revelation, for me, at least, but isn’t any proof in itself.) It therefore follows (as I understand the doctrine) that God, too, was somehow “created.” (A former prophet/president of the Church, Lorenzo Snow, once said, “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”) Please note that in this sense, his basic matter and energy were not “created,” but rather “organized” (as it says in that same book, about this subject) into a meaningful form–similarly to how a wooden building is made up of mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, but is not meaningful if broken down into those elements.
Reference:
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng
The D&C states that he was once a mortal man, tasked with fulfilling the role of Savior for the world that he inhabited. I don’t know if this world is one in our universe, or even our same reality, as we understand it, but it would seem that since (in the Mormon understanding) God–like every other mortal, as He would have been at that time–would have had free will to choose whether to fulfill what His own God’s–His own Father in Heaven’s–desires, or to choose a path inconducive to His Father’s plans for His (now, our God’s) happiness and the salvation of others. We Mormons hold that Christ had that same choice during His mortal ministry. Therefore, we do not believe that there was any kind of “Hand” guaranteeing that either our Father or Jesus would become Gods themselves, one day, but rather that they reached this state both on their own merits, and with the help of their forbears. We hold that in order for a person to be a Savior, he must complete His mortal ministry without committing a single sin–ever–which would be an impossible and truly extreme task for anyone else. Thus, as what I suspect was a sort of enabling gift, Christ was born of not two mortals, but of one mortal and one Deity, so that he would have the capacity for this task–but not any kind of coercion to do it. Some member of the Mormon Church may have a somewhat differing view on this theory, but the general thrust of it is pretty universal.
References:
http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/5.19?lang=eng#18
(There are other references on this topic, but I seem to be inept at finding them.)
So, why does any of this matter to us? Because if God was once a man, and if Christ has come to raise us up to be like Him, then it means that we’re destines for far greater things than what we can witness and become upon this earth! Why, then, all the rigamarole with commandments, judgement, mercy, atonement, damnation, etc.? It seems to me (so far as I understand the scriptures and the nature of life and reality) that all of this is a required process to both teach us what we need to know to responsibly fulfill the role of gods, ourselves, one day (though we will still need to keep learning well after mortal death to fully “get it”), as well as to prevent those of impure hearts from attaining to such power and office. The whole thing about “damnation,” as far as I can tell, is both a deterrent, and a halting of progress towards becoming gods for those unworthy of doing so. But how can we be “worthy” of such a thing when we all invariably screw up in significant ways both in mortality, and probably before and after it? How can we be expected to improve in such an ultimate and dramatic way if we aren’t allowed to make mistakes? It would seem that some kind of eternal law of justice demands that God punish those who have transgressed, regardless of their future or past actions, so if violating the law makes us worthy of damnation in such a way, how can we ever NOT be damned? There are several parables (metaphorical, morally significant, analogous stories) that explain the principle of a willing and qualified person being able to pay such a debt. The only person qualified, it seems, (since he would have to be without any debt, himself) was Jesus, and he did, indeed pay for all of our debts through his own suffering. (Misery and happiness seem to be the ultimate, and perhaps only forms of eternal “currency.” After all, what is really worth possessing, if it doesn’t make us happy? What is a true payment of a debt–in the most absolute terms–if we aren’t sacrificing such happiness?) One thing that I particularly like about the idea of the atonement, in addition to the foregoing, is that He not only paid with spiritual, internal suffering (similar to super-intense remorse, so powerful as to cause physical symptoms–such as a nasty psychosomatic illness like fibromyalgia–which I have–only much worse), but he also volunteered to experience our own physical, mortal sufferings–for every one of us, individually–while upon the cross, so that he could more fully understand what his stewardship of us causes us to feel and suffer. That, it seems to me, is the best mark of a great leader–the willingness (and ability) to suffer with His people, even if only to understand us. My favorite parable about this is linked below.
Video version (published by the Church, and one I really like): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz99fIgZbdI
Text version (contained in a lesson plan): http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=2d9da41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD
Well, that’s all I have energy for now, but hopefully, I’ve managed to clarify some things about my previous post. Have a nice day, everybody!
–Dane
Hi Dane!
Respectfully, all of this only fits if you believe in the gods of Mormonism. None of this fits with the God of the Bible. Jesus in the Bible is a completely different person than that of the Mormon Jesus. I’m not going to debate that with you today. Hope you are feeling better
Dane, I must pause at this point to ask a question; do you believe that you are paying a spiritual debt, atoning if you will, and that this is the cause of your psychosomatic illness?
I’m going to make some comments on this discussion, and I’m going to try and address Bobby, Kate, and Cory all at once. This will cover a wide range of topics. I’m going to put my thoughts into numbered sections as usual.
(1) It needs to be pointed out that the sermon from Joseph Smith that we are discussing does not contain binding, normative doctrine for Latter-day Saints. A Latter-day Saints can happily spend his life in the LDS Church without ever reading this sermon or knowing its contents. Critics of Mormonism see this as evidence of a “cover up” of some sort, but we Mormons see it as evidence that the sermon isn’t that big of a deal. It isn’t “scripture” in any binding sense. So let’s keep this in focus…we are debating (sometimes vehemently) an issue which has no serious implications for Latter-day Saints.
===================================================
(2) Latter-day Saints are still debating the meaning of this sermon. I remain agnostic as to meaning of the sermon. I’m familiar with the issues at stake, and I’m familiar with the evidence for and against different views, but I remain agnostic as to the nature of God’s past. So I’m coming at this discussion with the difficult task of engaging your comments without taking a firm stance in any particular direction. I don’t know what God’s past was like.
In the next to sections I want to illustrate that no matter which position you take on this issue, as a Mormon, there are a host of assumptions that have to be made which are all questionable. Whether you believe that God the Father has always been divine, or whether he became divine at some point, there are *tons* of assumptions and directions one can take which we simply aren’t always justified in taking.
===================================================
(3) I’m going to speak for a moment about one particular way of interpreting the King Follett Discourse (KFD). One particular way is to understand God as a being who at some point in the past “became” divine. Meaning, he was at some point less than what he is now, and through some process (unknown to us) he increased his state until he could be considered “divine”. It doesn’t really matter if his moment of “theosis” was before, during, or after a mortal life. What matters, especially for Evangelicals like Bobby, is that God has not always been totally “divine”.
One enormous issue here is to determine what it means for a being to be “divine”. What is “divinity”? What makes someone or something a “god”? If we are to imagine that God was not always divine, but at some point became divine, what exactly did that transformation look like? These are very important issues that rarely get discussed.
So what if God became fully divine (whatever that means) at some point in time, and was not always God? There are some assumptions that often are made by both Mormons and Evangelicals who discuss this possibility:
(A) If God was not always God, then he must have been a sinner. This position has lately been pushed especially by anti-Mormon Aaron Shafovaloff. Bobby simply assumes that this is the case and I think it is because his view has been colored by the blogs he frequents. It certainly isn’t in the text of the KFD.
(B) If God was not always God, then he must have a God above him who he worships. This is often assumed by Latter-day Saints. This view leads to a sort of infinite regress of divine persons, which really bothers Evangelicals.
Neither of these assumptions are required. Both of them make sense, and can logically be believed, but they are assumptions that don’t have to be made. We can read things another way. We can believe that God increased until he became fully divine (whatever that means) without needing to have been a “sinner” (whatever that means) or having a God above him. How? There are various possibilities, which don’t need to be explored at this moment. The bottom line is that we aren’t justified in simply assuming things and then insisting they are the way things have to be.
===================================================
(4) Now, I’m going to speak for a moment from another perspective. This perspective is that God has always been fully divine, and has never had to increase from “non-divine” to “divine”. Again, we are faced with the difficulty of understanding what exactly that means. If God has always been “divine”, does that mean he has always known all things? Does it mean that God has never learned anything? What exactly does it mean to be “divine”?
Kate (in her usual manner) has insisted that we turn to Joseph Smith for official LDS beliefs, and not to apologists. Her design is to brush away any statements by LDS scholars (such as Blake Ostler) which argue that God has always been God. Well, if we turn to Joseph Smith we get statements describing God as “infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God.” (D&C 20:17). So which should we give greater weight? Statements from Joseph Smith which are canonized in LDS Scripture, or statements which are not?
Also, every single week in LDS Sacrament Meetings the bread and water are blessed with the opening phrase, “Oh God, the Eternal Father…”. So the issue isn’t that simple. We have very clear language all throughout Mormon scriptures that describe God the Father as unchanging and eternal. But we have to be very careful in imposing our assumptions about what that must mean. Does God really never change? What does it mean to be “eternal”?
===================================================
(5) In discussions about the KFD it is almost NEVER analyzed in the context of the speech. Joseph Smith was speaking at a funeral, and his speech is designed to help console those who mourn over the dead. This fact needs to guide the way we read the sermon. If we are trying to decide between different ways of interpreting Joseph Smith, we should ask ourselves which option best fits the context of a funeral speech.
===================================================
(6) Kate wants to know where these topics are discussed in the Bible. Joseph Smith said:
“God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.”
Joseph is quoting from John 5:26, which notes the Father has life in himself, and the Son has received that same power from the Father. The statement is made in the context of resurrection. Joseph Smith interprets this passage in a certain way, and you are welcome to disagree. But this is the passage from the Bible that Joseph is reading.
Earlier I commented to Kate that this was new revelation. I was speaking generally about the broad concepts that Joseph Smith is teaching (that God is an exalted man, that God has increased, etc.). I wasn’t speaking specifically about this passage, in which Joseph quotes the Bible to show that Christ received the power of resurrection from his Father.
===================================================
(7) Finally, I want to speak for a moment about the notion of “God”. Most in this discussion have been operating under the belief that “God” by definition is the greatest thing imaginable. In other words, imagine the most amazing, most incredible, and most impressive thing in existence, and you have identified God. But I challenge that premise. If God is the most incredible thing we can imagine, then God is defined by our imaginations. What if we are imagining something that doesn’t exist? What if, in our view, the most amazing thing imaginable is a furry rabbit with a top hat? Does that mean God is a furry rabbit with a top hat?
What if we imagine that the most amazing thing is a being who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent? Does that mean God must have those qualities? Just because we’ve imagined it?
Sometimes an Evangelical will say, “the Mormon God is just an exalted man, he isn’t the totally other, without parts and passions, which is far superior.” But this statement assumes that something like that exists. Just because we think it is superior doesn’t meant it exists. God is what God is, independent of our imaginations or opinions about what he should be.
very interesting James, as ever a distinct lack of authorative LDS quotes (if there is such a thing) and a lot of assumption
Much more on this subject to come in future posts.
James,
Wow, all that from one statement made by Joseph Smith? May I remind you that this statement is basically where Mormons get the idea that the Mormon god was once a man and that they may become gods? That is LDS doctrine. You are reading way too much into his words. Yes I believe the LDS people should turn to and believe the words of their prophets before the words of any apologist. Do you think that Thomas Monson would want his followers to believe you over him? The LDS interpretation of John 5:26 is quite a stretch. This is what I mean about taking a verse out of the Bible and creating a whole doctrine or belief around it.
The 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, page 48, states “In addition to these four books of scripture [KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price], the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.”
The LDS Church has issued the following guidelines for determining their doctrines:
In addition, information on official Church Web sites is reliable and consistent with the doctrines and policies of the Church. All materials on Newsroom and other Church Web sites are carefully reviewed and approved before they are posted. . . . In a complementary way, Newsroom, LDS.org and other Church Web sites provide an official voice from the Church
So keeping this in mind let’s look at what the LDS church is teaching about this subject.
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 2007.
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.” (p. 40)
“Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, . . .” (p. 221)
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997.
God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality.” (p. 29)
The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He [God] lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; . . . (p. 30)
The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality? (p. 34)
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor, 2001.
“It is for the exaltation of man to this state of superior intelligence and Godhead that the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ is instituted; and that noble being, man, made in the image of God, is rendered capable not only of being a son of man, but also a son of God, . . . and is rendered capable of becoming a God, possessing the power, the majesty, the exaltation and the position of a God. (p. 5)
Gospel Principles, 2009.
Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him . . . These are some of the blessings given to exalted people: . . . They [exalted couples] will become gods. (see D&C 132:20-23). They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase . . . They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19-20). (p. 277)
Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” . . . Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. . . . He wants us to succeed even as He did. (p. 279)
Gospel Fundamentals, 2002.
It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth. (p. 204)
Father in Heaven: A perfect being who looks like a mortal man but has a resurrected body of flesh and bones. He is the Father of our spirits, to whom we pray. (p. 280)
Doctrines of the Gospel: Student Manual, Religion 430 & 431, 2004
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. . . .
I could go on and on but you get the picture. There is certainly no “debate” about this belief that comes from Joseph Smith. I also wonder how any LDS member doesn’t know what god’s past was like. It’s clearly taught in LDS “official” manuals and also by “official” LDS leaders.
Sorry, I left this one off.
Doctrines of the Gospel: Teachers Manual, Religion 430 & 432, 2000.
The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and the famous King Follett discourse given shortly before Joseph’s martyrdom in 1844 (see Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 343–62) are SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS on the nature of God . .. In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith declared that the FIRST principle of the gospel consists of knowing the character of God. Joseph taught that God “was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself” (Teachings, p. 346); or Supporting Statements B on pp. 7–8 of the student manual. (p. 7)
You’ve done a fine job of copying and pasting Kate. I’m not going to chase you down the rabbit trail of defining LDS doctrine. I recommend this to you for further reading:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine
From my perspective, this issue is an “in-house” debate, meaning it is a debate amongst Mormons with no room for Evangelicals looking for a good time. Evangelical anti-Mormons don’t have a voice in determining how the King Follett Discourse is to be interpreted or utilized. We haven’t settled the debate, and it probably will never be settled, and so the ambiguity and frustration will continue for Mormons who want an answer, and also for anti-Mormon Evangelicals who want something concrete they can howl at.
Sorry James, but I’ve posted the “official” doctrine on this. I’m not the least bit interested in the latest “opinion” of the apologists from FAIR. What I posted was from “official” church teaching manuals and “official” church leaders (which you are not). This is being taught as doctrine in LDS meetinghouses and LDS classes. I would bet that LDS members would be looking to these for truth not FAIR which holds absolutely no authority. The Doctrines of the Gospel: Teachers Manual, Religion 430 & 432, 2000, clearly says that the first vision and the King Follett discourse are significant doctrinal teachings. You can not refute that. Well I guess you could, but you may face disciplinary action. I also don’t understand why you think this is rabbit hole. The church has spoken on this so it should be settled. I am not “looking for a good time”, I post because I was once trapped in these unbiblical teachings and my friends and family are still trapped. I’ve come to know the True and Living Jesus of the Bible. I also know that Mormonism is not true. People need to break free from all the wishy washy teachings and “come unto Jesus”. There is no Salvation except in Jesus alone. Think about that for a minute. It’s a BIG deal. I know that I’m harder on you than the others but it’s because I feel that you aren’t really speaking from your heart, it feels to me that you are just spewing the latest from FAIR. I know that my opinion doesn’t matter to you, but believe it or not James, I feel compassion for you. I can’t imagine how tired my mind would be trying to jump through hoops to make Mormonism true. Jesus says “come unto ME and I will give thee rest”. It’s so true.
Kate,
The link I provided was to a FAIR website that has collected and researched statements by Church leaders about how to determine “official” LDS doctrine. It isn’t just a bunch of opinions by FAIR apologists.
Thanks.
James
The 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, page 48, states “In addition to these four books of scripture [KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price], the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.”
The LDS Church has issued the following guidelines for determining their doctrines:
In addition, information on official Church Web sites is reliable and consistent with the doctrines and policies of the Church. All materials on Newsroom and other Church Web sites are carefully reviewed and approved before they are posted. . . . In a complementary way, Newsroom, LDS.org and other Church Web sites PROVIDE AN OFFICIAL VOICE FROM THE CHURCH.
Is this not telling us that we may rely on these things as “official”? You should visit lds.org, there’s a whole section on how to teach the doctrines of the church.
I especially like these:
Use Church-Produced Lesson Materials
To help us teach from the scriptures and the words of latter-day prophets, the Church has produced LESSON MANUALS AND OTHER MATERIALS. THERE IS LITTLE NEED FOR COMMENTARIES OR OTHER REFERENCE MATERIAL. We should study the scriptures, teachings of latter-day prophets, and lesson materials thoroughly to be sure we correctly understand the doctrine before we teach it.
Teach Gospel Truths Clearly So That No One Will Misunderstand Them
President Harold B. Lee stated, “YOU’RE TO TEACH THE OLD DOCTRINES, not so plain that they can just understand, but you must teach the doctrines of the Church so plainly that no one can misunderstand” (“Loyalty,” in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. [1982], 64
President Ezra Taft Benson cautioned: “There have been and continue to be attempts made to bring [a humanistic] philosophy into our own Church history. … The emphasis is to underplay revelation and God’s intervention in significant events and to inordinately humanize the prophets of God so that their human frailties become more apparent than their spiritual qualities” (“God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1977], 310).
Speaking of these attempts, President Benson later said, “We would warn you teachers of this trend, which seems to be an effort to reinterpret the history of the Church so that it is more rationally appealing to the world” (The Gospel Teacher and His Message [address to religious educators, 17 Sept. 1976], 11).
Interesting. especially the last one, isn’t this the very thing that apologists do? This clearly says how the LDS church wants it’s doctrines taught to the Mormon masses. It’s “official”. From an “official” source. I have a question for you, is FAIR an “official” church website? Is everything there approved by the first presidency? If not, then why would I go there for information instead of the approved websites of the LDS church?
Kate,
I see that you are unwilling to do a little research (I even gave you links!) or a little thoughtful analysis, so I will do it for you. We will discuss the many statements you’ve drudged up. Down the rabbit hole we go…
===================================================
(1) The 2009 Gospel Principles manual, on page 48, reads:
Now, instead of rushing to interpret this in whatever way you think most damages the LDS faith (of course, you need to rationalize your apostasy), let’s carefully talk about this statement. There are two important things to observe. First, The statement does not say that every word printed or spoken in General Conference, the Ensign/Liahona, or to local priesthood leaders is “scripture”. Rather, the words spoken by living prophets come to us through those venues, but the “inspired” portion of them “become scripture to us”. Not every word written in those venues is “inspired”, and so not every word is “scripture”. Just the inspired parts. Determining what is inspired and what is can potentially be a challenge, and is best judged by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Second, we should come to an understanding about what the word “scripture” means. There are two basic senses of the word in LDS dialogue. The narrow sense of “scripture” includes the LDS quad, the canonized books that we study in Sunday School, Seminary, and which are the basic source material for all LDS beliefs (I speak of the Bible, BoM, D&C, and PoGP). That is the “high” or “narrow” view of scripture. Think I’m just making this up? Check the explanation of “scripture” in the Topical Guide on LDS.org, where it says, “The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.” You will also note that in that article it discusses each of those books briefly, but never discusses the words of prophets in the Ensign or General Conference.
The second sense of scripture includes anything, at all, which is inspired by God. In this sense, if a thing is inspired of God and written down then that thing is by definition “scripture”. That is the “low” or “broad” definition of what “scripture” is. Scripture is the written form of prophecy, and prophecy is the communication of God’s inspiration through humans (I’m not talking about the narrow idea of fortune-telling). So if God inspires you, yes you Kate, to know a certain thing or to do a certain thing, and you write that instruction down, then it becomes “scripture” to you. That is the broad definition of “scripture” that we are talking about.
The LDS Church obviously distinguishes between “official” or canonized scripture, and the broader view of scripture as anything which is inspired of God. We don’t canonize our Ensign magazines. They are not part of our Sunday School curriculum. So this particular statement from the 2009 Gospel Principles Manual assumes that readers understand that basic point. The inspired words of living prophets are scripture, but not in the same sense as the canonized books of scriptures.
===================================================
(2) In press statement in June, 2007, the LDS Newsroom website made the following statement:
I don’t see anything here to take issue with. But let’s make sure we are reading this statement correctly. It does not say that everything published on Church websites is “scripture”, or “inspired”, or “doctrine”. It merely calls it an “official voice from the Church”. That doesn’t mean that just because an obscure quote from some past LDS leader is found somewhere in the vast collection of materials on LDS.org that that quote is “doctrine” or somehow authoritative for LDS members. Each item found on the websites needs to be taken and interpreted in context, and, unfortunately for you, the final call gets to be made by believing LDS members. Not by anti-Mormons like you, Kate.
===================================================
(3) You, Kate, then proceed to quote three statements which all come, I believe, from the manual “Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching”. This manual is designed primarily to help people teaching LDS Sunday School, youth, Priesthood or Relief Society, Seminary, or any other “official” LDS course. The quotes in question discourage individual teachers from introducing their own pet ideas or philosophies, and sticking to the basics. This is wise counsel. I see nothing with which to disagree here.
But, Kate wonders whether FAIR apologists are not heeding this counsel. Well, these comments were not directed to FAIR apologists. They were directed to people who teach LDS courses. How does the Church really feel about using “outside” or “non-correlated” materials? Well, such materials are regularly used in General Conference. Just skim the footnotes of a handful of GC talks from the latest Conference and you will plenty. Ever heard of the book “Jesus the Christ” by LDS apostle James Talmage? It is beloved by LDS everywhere, and is included in the “official” reading list of young Mormon missionaries. That book is positively reliant on the scholarship of non-Mormon scholars. It quotes very heavily from Protestant scholars especially (much of that scholarship is now outdated).
===================================================
(4) Kate wants to know why she should go to FAIR instead of going to official LDS websites for information about the LDS Church. By all means, go to the LDS websites for “official voice of the Church”. That is a wonderful idea. But be aware that the LDS websites rarely, if ever, engage critics of the Church. You will not find robust defenses of things like polygamy, blood atonement, or any other matter. Why? Because that is not their primary concern. Instead, the Church thus far has been content to let individual members and scholars do the exhaustive (and sometimes expensive) research and publish their findings. The Church’s flagship university, BYU, now owns and funds the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, formerly known as FARMS. FARMS is of course a clearinghouse for LDS scholarship, a major portion of which includes defending the LDS Church. While any particular essay or article from FARMS is not an “official” voice of the LDS Church, the LDS Church does set aside funds and encourages FARMS in its battle with critics of Mormonism.
What about FAIR? FAIR is an independent organization of volunteers dedicated to defending the LDS Church. The Church does not providing any sort of funding or directions in FAIR’s activities. FAIR can act as an independent voice. FAIR volunteers research and publish articles, essays, books, etc., that explore criticisms of the LDS Church and seek to refute them. Why should you turn to FAIR instead of the LDS Church websites? Well, you aren’t going to find anything like it on the LDS websites. The Church just doesn’t do it. But don’t be fooled into thinking the Church isn’t aware or supportive of FAIR. FAIR leaders are in regular communication with Church PA, making sure that their projects are in line with the wishes of the Church. The Church websites have linked to FAIR on numerous occasions, and are generally grateful for their hard work.
Bottom line: Ignore FAIR and FARMS scholarship if it helps you sleep better at night (cognitive dissonance is difficult, it may be best for you to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your beliefs. But I personally don’t do that.). But don’t pretend you can just brush it off because it isn’t an “official” LDS voice. If you want to debate what Mormons believe, you have to deal with individual Mormons.
===================================================
(5) Finally, I need to bring this all back full circle to the real topic of this blog post. The King Follett Discourse is an amazing speech in which Joseph Smith introduced magnificent, and radical, views of God. Most Latter-day Saints generally believe the broad principles that he taught. God was once a man. God increased in some sense to become what he is today. But the details of what that all means are shrouded in controversy and are difficult to ascertain for certain. But the King Follett Discourse is not “scripture” in any official sense. It is not canonized (but the beauty of an open canon is that it someday may be). Each latter day saint is left to decide for themselves if they believe that Joseph was inspired on that particular occasion.
James,
I’m pushing the “official” thing because you are the one who keeps throwing it up against any quote or teaching that is mentioned here. You’ve done it from the beginning. Nothing is “official church teachings” unless it’s from your FAIR website. You can’t have it both ways. Why should we believe that anything you say or quote is “official”? I’m not really bagging on whether or not this stuff is scripture, I’m pointing out that it’s “official”. You’ve said tons without really saying anything at all. What I posted is what is being taught by the church. Sorry. Mormon masses are being taught from these manuals and leaders have ensured us that we can trust these sources along with the church’s websites to give us “official” information. I’ve done the research thank you. I take the LDS prophet’s words (past and present) as official teachings and doctrines the way they are meant. Twist it if you want to. To “need to rationalize my apostasy” first I would have to consider myself an apostate. Apostate from what? I’ve come to the True and Living Jesus of the Bible. Him alone. I’m free. If you want to consider me an apostate from a multi million dollar false religious institution be my guest. That word “apostate” means nothing to me so no need to try and insult me with it. Once again, The Doctrines of the Gospel: Teachers Manual, Religion 430 & 432, 2000, clearly says that the first vision and the King Follett discourse are SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS. This teaching manual is printed and endorsed as “official” teachings by the LDS church. Members are being taught this and not left to “just decide for themselves if they believe that Joseph was inspired on that particular occasion.” It’s official LDS church doctrine.
For every quote that Bobby posts here for discussion, whether it shines a good or bad light on the LDS Church, I’m going to keep reminding you all, especially you Kate, that none of these constitute “official” LDS doctrines. They don’t.
In all your quoting of LDS leaders you conveniently forgot to include this important quote from the LDS Newsroom:
“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.”
Your latest response amounts to a big “nuh-uh”. I suppose we are at an impasse. I don’t know what it is about you Kate, but I certainly don’t have such contentious discussions with Bobby or most other Evangelicals I run into.
James,
It’s because I have lived it James. It’s because I have come to the saving GRACE of Christ. It’s because I see things that you post that most Mormons I know would say aren’t true. It’s because I see the seriousness in false teachings. Most evangelicals haven’t been LDS for 40 years, deceived for 40 years. It’s because I have seen, heard, witnessed what is taught in an LDS church for 40 years. Yes you and I are like oil and water, I agree, but I won’t stop challenging you or your comments, why? Because Christianity has been around for nearly 2 thousand years and from the beginning there have been those who have come against it. Mormonism has only been around for 183 years and it claims to be the “true, restored Christianity”. The Bible tells us Christians to contend for and defend the faith. That is why this blog and others like it exist. We are to expose false teachings that claim to be Christian and we are to defend the traditional Christ of the Bible. Mormonism is nothing but false teachings with a false Christ (that Jesus warned us about) and it should be exposed. Bobby’s goal here is to show Mormons the differences between Christianity and Mormonism and God willing to help Mormons come out of Mormonism. I James, have been through this entire process. It’s not easy. It was heart wrenching. I’ve lived it. If I can help just one person see that there is life after Mormonism, then posting here will have been worth it.
Kate,
You said, “I take the LDS prophet’s words (past and present) as official teachings and doctrines the way they are meant.”
If you really mean this, please give me your reaction to this statement by former LDS President Harold B. Lee:
“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.”
James,
My reaction to this quote and really all quotes of LDS leaders is that they contradict one another constantly. Yes I take all things said by LDS leaders past and present the way that they are meant when said. This only proves that LDS leaders are poor spiritual guides with no authority from God whatsoever. God says he’s not a God of confusion. The seriousness of false teachings by LDS prophets seems to be lost on many people. Let’s use the Adam/God doctrine taught by Brigham Young for example. I want you personally to stand in front of all those thousands of people who died believing Adam was God and tell them that it was just his “opinion”. Where are these people James? Do they have their Salvation? I don’t see how they could have. They worshiped a false God. They died worshiping a false God. These are real lives and real people who are affected by this. These men should be held accountable for their false teachings, not put high upon a pedestal surrounded by apologists saying, golly gee, he is just a fallible man who was just voicing his opinion. To be fair to you about the quotes that I used, they do talk about scripture, doctrine and official voice. I was wanting to point out that these sources are said by the leadership of the LDS church to be a reliable place to find official teachings of the LDS church.
For some reason I submitted a comment but it didn’t make it through. I’ll briefly summarize it here.
We’ve considered three important statements from the Church that all provide guidance in determining what LDS believe. But it is noteworthy that each of them actually is dealing with a slightly different thing. The Gospel Principles quote deals with “scripture”, while the May 2007 Newsroom statement deals with “doctrine”, and the June 2007 Newsroom statement deals with the “official voice” of the Church. It seems probable that these three items (scripture, doctrine, and the official voice) are not necessarily the same thing.
Kate,
You said,
Surely it is an exaggeration to say that LDS leaders contradict each other constantly. Contradictions certainly do exist, but not constantly. From time to time we do get contradictions, but that is simply a part of religion. To assume that the presence of contradictions automatically invalidates a religious tradition is a serious problem. It is a very fundamentalist way of viewing the world, and of viewing revealed religion. Contradictions exist in many places throughout the Bible. I’ve no doubt that that is a claim you’d disagree with, and we probably don’t need to get lost in a debate about that. But I believe (and I think most serious students and scholars agree) that the Bible has more than a handful of contradictions. But, for the sake of discussion, if the Bible does contain contradictions why is that a problem? It is only a problem if you assume a fundamentalist view of inerrancy for God’s prophets and the scriptures that they produce. It is only a problem if you ignore the fact that interpretation exists, and no matter how inerrantly a passage of scripture can be recorded it is going to invariably be interpreted in different ways by different people, functionally negating any (theoretical) benefits of inerrancy.
But that is precisely what is up for debate. The questions we have to answer on a case-by-case basis are: (1) What is the “the way that they are meant when said” and (2) should we always take it that way? The existence of tension in the words of sustained leaders is a built in aspect of any religion. We aren’t supposing that God is responsible for the tension, but the magnificent driving factor at the center of God’s activity is that he allows man to grow and develop by actively participating in the unfolding of those plans. Prophets err from time to time (see Jonah, or the drunk Noah, for example), but it is wonderful that they are even allowed to participate in God’s plan and fully retain their moral agency. Let’s not lose sight of the forest just because of a few gnarled trees.
But this judgement of LDS leaders contradicts the actual experience of millions of devotees. Latter-day Saints all over the world find strength and spiritual comfort in the inspired words of LDS leaders. They leave behind sinful habits and take up righteous ones. They are emboldened to exercise faith and to be examples of charity and selflessness. They are encouraged to be contributing voices to public discussions about morality. Clearly, in the eyes of the faithful, LDS leaders are wonderful spiritual guides. I am among those who feel this way. My life has been nothing but blessed because of them.
Good example. First of all, I’m not sure that we can say that thousands of people have died believing that Adam was God. The idea never really caught on, and it puttered out after a short time. If I had the incredible opportunity to stand before every person who has believed that Adam was God, I would gladly tell them that it was just Brigham Young’s opinion. I would certainly feel a bit sad at their confusion, but I wouldn’t be bothered by their state of salvation. I don’t believe it has anything to do with whether or not they are saved. They aren’t worshipping a false God, they simply had incorrect ideas about God’s past dealings. Within the LDS framework, in which God is an exalted man anyway, it wouldn’t even change God’s nature to imagine (incorrectly) that God was Adam.
Here is another point on which you will surely disagree, but it is worthy pointing out anyway. Many prophets from the Old Testament had incorrect understandings of who (or what) God is. They did not have a full recognition of the tripartite nature of his being. They new that a god named Jehovah had made a covenant with them, and they were to worship him alone, to the exclusion of other gods, but they did not understand that their God was actually a Trinity of persons comprising a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Are those people damned for eternity because they did not properly understand God’s nature? Surely they are not. Salvation comes when we exercise faith in God, not when we correctly identify God’s nature or his past dealings. That would be rather legalistic.
That’s enough for now. Hope you are having an enjoyable summer. Next week I’ll be starting at a new internship which will keep me busy, along with trying to finish my masters thesis, taking care of my wife and son, trying to buy a new car, and attending to my church responsibilities. It will be a busy summer!
James,
It’s crazy the way some people throw out the Bible when they are trying to defend Mormonism. It seems whenever a point of Mormonism can’t be defended, here comes the Bible. I know what you are saying about it, but it’s interesting that the Bible is thrown out there. Mormonism, if true, should stand on it’s own two feet.
Brigham Young taught the Adam/God doctrine from the pulpit for 20 years. There were certainly thousands who died believing Adam WAS GOD AND THE ONLY GOD WITH WHICH WE HAVE TO DO. I know that some apostles at that time didn’t believe him and was against the doctrine, but who did the people believe? The words of the prophet whom they think speaks nothing but scripture and revelation (that’s how it was then, they didn’t have the quote by Harold B. Lee.)
Your explanation of the people in the Bible not knowing God was a tripartite being is a far cry from making God’s creation (Adam) actually God. See they knew the true and living God. They were worshiping the true and living God. Adam was not and has never been the true and living God. He was God’s creation and if you had told anyone in the Old Testament days that Adam was God, you probably would have been stoned to death. That was a really poor analogy. The Adam/God doctrine didn’t simply change the nature of God. It completely threw out the true and living God and replaced him with a man that God created.
Good luck with your thesis and enjoy your little guy!
Kate said,
This is slightly better than the typical Evangelical response to when Mormons use the Bible against Evangelicals. At least you mentioned that you understand what I’m trying to get at. I’m not attacking the Bible. What I’m attacking is (1) the Evangelical view of the Bible and (2) the double standard that Evangelicals employ when attacking Mormon doctrine or scripture. Whatever standards you use to critique Mormonism should be equally applied to your own faith and your own cherished books of scripture. Unfortunately we Mormons end up having to do that for you far too often.
But they did have statements like this from Brigham Young:
It is also interesting to note that Brigham Young never sought to have his views of Adam-God canonized (Which are still disputed. We still don’t fully understand what Brigham believed about this. That fact should not be overlooked.) Brigham Young wasn’t afraid to add to the canon, because he did so with D&C 136. If Brigham felt that his views of Adam-God were so important that everyone needed to agree with him he would have sought to have them canonized. But, felicitously, he did not.
And if you would have told people that God would appear as a mortal man you would be stoned also. Just ask Jesus about that. They didn’t believe that God would ever have a mortal nature.
I think it was a fine analogy. In the minds of the Pharisees, who were very faithful Jews, claiming that a man was God was replacing the true and living God “with a man that God created.” Even in your own Trinitarian belief God, or the second person of God, is 100% human. Human, by nature, is a creation of God. Ergo God is both Creator and creature. The Adam-God doctrine, whatever it really was (we still don’t really understand it), doesn’t suggest that a creature is actually the Creator. It would, theoretically, dismiss the idea that Adam was a creature at all.
This is all getting rather esoteric. We don’t fully understand what Brigham Young believed. He apparently made conflicting statements over the years. His theology on this question was likely in constant development.
James
However Brigham Young did say
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom…I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).
and
“I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
I would say from this that Brigham did not lack confidence or certainly in what he had to say.
But see Bobby, these negative quotes are filed in the “doesn’t count file”, only the uplifting quotes should be shown. Sorry but Mormons can’t have it both ways.
Hi Bobby. You said:
True enough. Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith before him, seems to have been very sure of his prophetic calling. I’d hope that all prophets, including ancient OT and NT prophets, were sure of their callings. Paul certainly was too. Let’s take a look at the two quotes you provided us. Here is the first one, with a little more context:
Now I’ve bolded a phrase in the above quote. You will that Brigham placed a stipulation on his comment that his sermons are “scripture”. It is that he have the opportunity of reviewing it to make sure it is worthy of being “scripture”. Even still, apparently some were a bit uncomfortable with this statement. Later Brigham Young made further clarifications:
You will notice that here again Brigham Young clarifies that in order for a sermon of his to be considered scripture is must first be copied and approved by him. Meaning, they must be approved by him as scripture. Brigham Young would have had to review a copy of his sermon (most of his sermons were given extemporaneously, so copyists scribbled down his words the best they could), and then Brigham would need to review it and declare it to be “scripture”.
The undeniable fact is that not a single one of Brigham’s sermons ever was added to the canon of LDS scripture, and to my knowledge not once did he ever attempt to make it so. If he actually felt that every sermon he ever gave was to be immediately considered “scripture”, the LDS canon would indeed be very large. But the fact is that he did not. He did not consider every word he ever uttered from the pulpit to be scripture. That is obvious. So despite the quotes you provide and the spin you have put on them, suggesting that Brigham Young actually thought his sermons were all scripture, his clarifications and his actions suggest otherwise.
You quotes Brigham Young again:
Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith before him, seems to have been very sure of his prophetic calling. I’d hope that all prophets, including ancient OT and NT prophets, were sure of their callings. Paul certainly was too. Until I can gather more information, I’ll simply agree that this statement is very bold, and I wish Brigham could have been a bit more reserved in this moment. He certainly did teach incorrect ideas, it would appear, in the form of his Adam-God doctrine.
James
Thanks James I appreciate your explanations and your honesty about the problematic things Brigham Young said, I think as ever my big problem here is that 90% plus of LDS members will probably never know about things like this but there you go. I will leave this for now but do appreciate your response.
You might or might not be pleased to know I am gonna stop the quotes of the week for a few weeks as me and the wife go to Utah on Thursday, so for our time there this blog will be used to keep people up to date with all thats going on with us there, feel free to keep an eye on that and comment. Talk soon
Kate said:
Kate, we (LDS) don’t hold to fundamentalist, unbiblical views about prophets. Prophets are humans. Prophets make mistakes. Prophets sin. It is fine to discuss the negative quotes, but at all times it has to be kept in mind that Latter-day Saints don’t hold fundamentalist Christian views about the nature of prophets. If you are going to meaningfully criticize the Latter-day Saints you must do so from within a LDS framework. You can’t expect us to bat an eye when you criticize us based on criteria that we don’t share. We don’t share the same criteria that you do about prophets, and so we aren’t bothered, and we actually do agree, that our prophets can, and have, gotten things wrong.
James,
First, I really don’t have to do anything “within an LDS framework”. I’m a Christian who believes in traditional Christianity and Mormonism claims that it’s Christianity restored. I have a right as a Christian to refute that claim, show where Mormonism is absolutely not Christian and contend for the Christian faith. I would say that it is you who should be looking at things through the Christian framework, after all you claim to be a Christian.
Are the sermons by Brigham Young not copied and approved by him in the JOD??? The people of the day used the JOD as scripture. Wise words and revelation by God. LDS leaders today still have some of their words meant as scripture right? They haven’t been copied into any LDS cannon. In fact nothing has been added to the D&C since 1978. So have there not been revelations or any new scripture for the past 33 years? Tell me why anyone should follow a prophet then. If they are no more in tune with the Lord than anyone else. Once again, you can’t have it both ways.
Kate,
I’m tiring of this discussion. I’ve got a busy life right now. I’m going to leave you with links to information on these topics, and I hope you will consider checking them out. Please don’t brush them aside simply because you don’t like who the authors are (one is FAIR, the other is me). If you want to actually deal with LDS apologetics (though perhaps you aren’t actually interested in dealing with our arguments) you have to consider what FAIR writes.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/As_doctrine_and_one_of_the_%22standard_works%22_of_the_Church
http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/defining-scripture/