The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_sailgirl7
_Emeritus
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:51 pm

Post by _sailgirl7 »

The Church is not a babysitter for anyones spiritual life.

And yet in order to determine your standing within the church they need to know and ask you what underwear you wear, what food and drink you consume, what sexual activities you participate in, what tithing you pay, what groups you associate with, whether you support the Prophet, if you have done your home/visiting teaching, etc.

One moment we're accused of "When the Brethren have spoken, the thinking has been done". Then we're accused of not having firm enough doctrine. We can't win that game.

Those are two very different things you are refering to. One is where I don't want to be told to believe in something without the right to question it's validity. The other is trying to find an unambigious answer to what the organization actually does believe in so that I can make a decision whether to participate in and support such an organization. Also, if someone claims they have knowledge about the eternal fate of my soul- I would hope it's not just some game.

In truth the LDS Church is very free about what it's members can believe.

Depends on your definetion of "in truth" and "very free" and " can believe".
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

Nephi wrote:
Sethbag wrote:The real real question, which you ought to be asking yourself, is why in the heck you believe a word these men say at all.

Because if all churches are manmade (as you pointed out), then there is no pure source of spiritual knowledge anywhere in the world. This either means that the individual should look nowhere to find his spiritual nourishment, or one should look at many sources. I am a member of this church because the basics that it teaches is very true, and there is a large amount of ritual intertwined in the doctrine, which is largely missed from many established religions in the world. The church gives my children foundation for them to build their spiritual journeys upon.

However, being a member doesn't mean I put on blinders (and I hope all here have learned this about myself upon reading my posts here). I find spirituality from many different sources. As written in scriptures
Matt 4:4 - It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Nephi: are you a convert to the church. I ask that because you said that you are a member of the church because the basics that it teaches are very true but most (at least in Utah) are members because their parents were members, not because it teaches truth.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.

If you don’t believe me when I say “official doctrine” is a recent innovation in Mormonism, just do a search for it on the LDS website. Only seven hits come up, the earliest during the 70’s.

To nail home the apologetic purpose of all this, take a long close look at this Ensign article from 1982. Someone asks the question, “Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?”

And now check out the response:
Gerald N. Lund, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40
Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no “official” pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snow’s couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.
Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.
In her biography of her brother, Eliza R. Snow explains the circumstances which led Lorenzo Snow to pen the famous couplet: “Being present at a ‘Blessing Meeting,’ in the Temple, previous to his baptism into the Church; after listening to several patriarchal blessings pronounced upon the heads of different individuals with whose history he was acquainted, and of whom he knew the Patriarch was entirely ignorant; he was struck with astonishment to hear the peculiarities of those persons positively and plainly referred to in their blessings. And, as he afterwards expressed, he was convinced that an influence, superior to human prescience, dictated the words of the one who officiated.
“The Patriarch was the father of Joseph, the Prophet. That was the first time Lorenzo had met him. After the services, they were introduced, and Father Smith said to my brother that he would soon be convinced of the truth of the latter-day work, and be baptized; and he said: ‘You will become as great as you can possibly wish—EVEN AS GREAT AS GOD, and you cannot wish to be greater.’ ” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 9–10.)
Lorenzo Snow was baptized a short time later and began his service in the Church. In the spring of 1840 he was called to serve a mission in the British Isles. Before his departure he was in the home of a Church member who was preaching a sermon on the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. (See Matt. 20:1–16.) According to Elder Snow, “While attentively listening to his explanation, the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …
“As man now is, God once was:”
“As God now is, man may be.”
“I felt this to be a sacred communication, which I related to no one except my sister Eliza, until I reached England, when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young, in Manchester, I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.” (Eliza R. Snow, pp. 46–47; italics added. Brigham Young was President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time.)
President Snow’s son LeRoi later told that the Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the validity of the revelation Elder Snow had received: “Soon after his return from England, in January, 1843, Lorenzo Snow related to the Prophet Joseph Smith his experience in Elder Sherwood’s home. This was in a confidential interview in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s reply was: ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’ ” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.)
The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … 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 himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)
Once the Prophet Joseph had taught the doctrine publicly, Elder Snow also felt free to publicly teach it, and it was a common theme of his teachings throughout his life. About ten years before his death, while serving as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Snow incorporated his original couplet into a longer poem. He addressed the poem to the Apostle Paul, who had written the following to the Philippian Saints:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)
Part of the poem reads:
The boy, like to his father grown,
Has but attained unto his own;
To grow to sire from state of son,
Is not ’gainst Nature’s course to run.
A son of God, like God to be,
Would not be robbing Deity.
(As cited in LeRoi C. Snow, p. 661.)
Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:
“I think I can pay no greater tribute to [President Lorenzo Snow and Elder Erastus Snow] than to preach again that glorious doctrine which they taught and which was one of the favorite themes, particularly of President Lorenzo Snow. …
“We have been promised by the Lord that if we know how to worship, and know what we worship, we may come unto the Father in his name, and in due time receive of his fulness. We have the promise that if we keep his commandments, we shall receive of his fulness and be glorified in him as he is in the Father.
“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’
“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …
“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)
It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.


Now where in this article is the teaching considered less than doctrine? The author seems somewhat confused why this person would even use the phrase “official doctrine.” He says, “the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.”

In other words, something that is regularly taught by the Church is official doctrine unless the Church says otherwise. Or, unless it causes such a controversy that the Church needs to release an "official" clarification. And as he said, this is rare!

Now this article was published by the Ensign in 1982 by Gerald Lund. Fifteen years later the prophet of the Church is asked about this question publicly, and this is how he responds:



Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997?

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.


So just fifteen years prior it was solid doctrine that had been taught regularly, and explained as such, and then suddenly when the cameras are on the President of the Church, the doctrine becomes a meaningless “couplet.”
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

dartagnan wrote:I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.


Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.

Sailgirl,
Thanks for your useful comments.

Best.

CKS
_Nephi

Post by _Nephi »

thestyleguy wrote:
Nephi wrote:
Sethbag wrote:The real real question, which you ought to be asking yourself, is why in the heck you believe a word these men say at all.

Because if all churches are manmade (as you pointed out), then there is no pure source of spiritual knowledge anywhere in the world. This either means that the individual should look nowhere to find his spiritual nourishment, or one should look at many sources. I am a member of this church because the basics that it teaches is very true, and there is a large amount of ritual intertwined in the doctrine, which is largely missed from many established religions in the world. The church gives my children foundation for them to build their spiritual journeys upon.

However, being a member doesn't mean I put on blinders (and I hope all here have learned this about myself upon reading my posts here). I find spirituality from many different sources. As written in scriptures
Matt 4:4 - It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Nephi: are you a convert to the church. I ask that because you said that you are a member of the church because the basics that it teaches are very true but most (at least in Utah) are members because their parents were members, not because it teaches truth.

Yes, my whole family (wife, myself, and oldest child) converted together. We have two more children, but neither are of the age of 8 yet.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

CKSalmon

Post by _Gazelam »

I wonder which part of what was written in the Seer Brigham and the others were opposed to. It cannot have been that God does not know all things. I would guess that more than likly it was his description of how things are created. Or perhaps it was in reference to the relationship between the Gods in their sharing equal knowledge of things. The truths of salvation are eternal, but possessing all knowledge does not entail that one God knows everything pertaining to another Gods creations. Our Father in heaven might know the fall of every sparrow among his own creations, but not necessarily of another Gods creations.

Gospel knowledge deals primarily with a clear perception of the truths about God and his laws governing his dealings with his offspring, the laws which if obeyed will enable these offspring to gain salvation in the presence of God. In a lesser sense gospel knowledge deals with all truth, for al truth comes from God, and in the ultimate sense it is all part of the gospel.

Knowledge is an attribute of Deity and is posessed by him in its fulness. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15:18.) "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46:9-10.)

An understanding that God knows all things, and that there is nothing which he does not know, is essentially necessary for man to have in order to excercise faith and gain salvation. As the Prophet said: "Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to excercise faith in him." ( Lectures on Faith, p.44) Not only does the Father know all things, but so likewise does the Son (D&C 38:2; 93:26) and the Holy Ghost. (D&C 35:19; 42:17)

The process of gaining exaltation consists in growing in knowledge until a state of godhood is reached. "The relationship we have with God," the Prophet said, "places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." (Teachings, p.354.)
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

cksalmon wrote:
dartagnan wrote:I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.


Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.


Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--i.e. as a systematic theology. These good folks tend to forget that the essence of Christ's gospel is not so much a matter of intellectual and legalistic epistemic, but rather changing personal natures to become Christ-like and bearing Christ-like fruits: feeding the spiritual and physical hungry, healing the spiritual and physical sick, assisting a neighbor in need, etc. The gospel is about Godly love, which lends itself less to doctrines exactitudes (official vs unofficial) and more to doing good works and living edifying lives. To me, an hour laboring at welfare square or the Sort Center teaches me far more about Christ and his gospel than a week of scholarly lectures on Christology or endless debates and disputes thereon.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

How silly of critics to imagine that the restoration of plain and precious truths might have something to do with reliably conveying information about God and his desires for mankind.

Joseph certainly seemed to think that understanding the true attributes of God was important, but he was just speaking as a man.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

Post by _cksalmon »

wenglund wrote:
cksalmon wrote:
dartagnan wrote:I am convinced that this hair-splitting nonsense about “official doctrine” is relatively recent concept in the Church and it is deeply rooted in the apologetic movement. I was thinking about this lately because I am in the middle of a discussion over at MAD where I am told that the LDS notion of Elohim = God the Father was only a “recent” thing in Mormonism as if that was somehow supposed to make LDS less tied down to it as doctrine.


Kevin,
This is a great point. From the reading I've done, the intricacies involved in determining whether Brigham Young's statements were "official" or not would probably have been scoffed at by the man himself.


Actually, I think the so-called "hair-splitting nonsense" has been a function of rigid and narrow-minded critics and members attempting to pigeon-hole the restored gospel of Christ in ways that were never intended--I.e. as a systematic theology.


It is, indeed, difficult to have a systematic theological system when there are so many contradictory data in the historical record.

In short, the real nonsense is in quibbling over what doctrines are "official" or not, rather than striving to follow Christ.


And then one ends up with a nebulous, impenetrable body of quasi-beliefs that not even lifelong members have a hope of parsing. I'm all for striving to follow Christ, but what one believes about Christ is equally important. Anything beyond absolute basic theological claims leaves LDS in a morass of contradictory proclamations.

Most LDS, it seems, are just as uncomfortable as myself with regard to such inconsistencies. And thus, the "we're more about praxis than knowledge."

More power to you. But I wish to know, and have good reason to say I know, the things that I believe to be true about such momentous concepts as God and his ability to know the future.

Doesn't matter to you?

Then I bid you a hearty "So what?" Wade.

CKS
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

beastie wrote:How silly of critics to imagine that the restoration of plain and precious truths might have something to do with reliably conveying information about God and his desires for mankind.

Joseph certainly seemed to think that understanding the true attributes of God was important, but he was just speaking as a man.


He restored the truths by pointing the way. He knew because of revelation and experience. The understanding of God is not something you can learn in the academic sense. Sorry.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Post Reply