The KFD and the nature of God: resolved

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Much discussion has ensued here, and in other LDS forums, regarding the teachings of the KFD and the nature of God within the context of his origins vis-a-vis his status as a god and the process through which he became such. The question has revolved around the nature of "official" LDS doctrine and the status of that which is taught in the KFD as doctrine (and this is, let it be made clear, independent of whether or not the doctrines taught are to be, or can be considered by faithful LDS, true).

Now, there are well understood and delineated means by which members of the Church may distinguish official doctrine from non-official doctrine (which may, in the larger scheme of things, be nonetheless true, or pointing to further, not yet fully revealed truths), theological speculation, or the personal opinions of General Authorities. One is, of course, anything published by the Church, including, not only the Standard Works of the Church, but its official publications intended for religious instruction in our meetings and personal studies. This would comprise Sunday School manuals, Gospel doctrine manuals, Priesthood manuals, Institute of Religion study manuals, First Presidency messages, Conference talks, and official declarations and proclamations.

While the literal Fatherhood of God thread died in the CK, something new has yet been added. In perusing chapter 2 in this year's Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith manual for Priesthood and Relief Society study, I came upon, on page 40 of the manual, the following:

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …

This direct quotation from the KFD with respect to the concept of God the Father having once been a mortal like ourselves, having undergone a mortal experience, and by obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, having been deified, would seem, once and for all, to have put an end to any further speculation or ambiguity regarding the status of this idea (as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become) as settled, foundational doctrine.

This would also mean that critics of the concept from within the Church, such as Blake Ostler, well meaning and serious as his critiques have been, need no longer exercise themselves philosophically over the idea, even though the philosophical and theological implications of the doctrine remain staggering.

Does this settle the issue? Who agrees that the issue, as far as the "official' nature of the concept, is now settled for believing LDS, and who does not agree? Why?

[_Jason Bourne]

This direct quotation from the KFD with respect to the concept of God the Father having once been a mortal like ourselves, having undergone a mortal experience, and by obedience to the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, having been deified, would seem, once and for all, to have put an end to any further speculation or ambiguity regarding the status of this idea (as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become) as settled, foundational doctrine.

This would also mean that critics of the concept from within the Church, such as Blake Ostler, well meaning and serious as his critiques have been, need no longer exercise themselves philosophically over the idea, even though the philosophical and theological implications of the doctrine remain staggering.

Does this settle the issue? Who agrees that the issue, as far as the "official' nature of the concept, is now settled for believing LDS, and who does not agree? Why?

Blake Ostler does not argue that God was not ever a mortal man. He argues against the idea that The Eternal God of all other gods had a father. Other than that he believes the teachings you have outlined.

I agree that the doctrine taught in the KFD are official doctrine of the Church.

[_the road to hana]

Does this settle the issue? Who agrees that the issue, as far as the "official' nature of the concept, is now settled for believing LDS, and who does not agree? Why?

Nothing is ever settled in a church which believes that the only thing permanent is change.

Any future "revelation" could Trump that at any time. Although I would concur that putting it in a teaching manual in 2008 gives it official credibility in 2008. Kind of like saying that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith had only one wife.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Blake Ostler does not argue that God was not ever a mortal man. He argues against the idea that The Eternal God of all other gods had a father.

Which would present a torturous logical and conceptual problem in conceiving just how God came to be a mortal (if he followed the normative pattern as understood in the plan of salvation as revealed to us, and as followed by Jesus Christ himself, he would have at one time been "born", the son of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, into a premortal existence as an "intelligence"; as a being not only possessing mind, intelligence, and sentience, but a spirit body, providing such intelligence with the property of self identity and differentiation, or individuation, from different selves. This spirit body then becomes the template for the physical, mortal body).

I think the fact that the very same Prophet who taught these concepts in the KFD in which we find the quotations I posted, here represented in an official Church teaching publication, also says the following in a sermon given in 1844 as recorded in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479 (italics mine).
[/i]

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

...Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

...If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I've got Brother Ostler's criticisms here, and have read them, but find them unpersuasive for the reasons I've specified before, to wit: I see little merit in picking and choosing between doctrines taught by the Prophet simply on the basis of a personal, idiosyncratic philosophical problems with them, especially given the very fundamental and basic nature of the concepts and given their source, the Prophet of the Restoration, a substantial doctrinal contribution from whom, as it appears in, what to some is the controversial KFD, has now appeared in official Church sources.

While isolated scriptures do support Ostler (and the EVs and Catholics) on this matter, the more extensive understanding of the pattern of the plan of salvation, and the eternal (not just infinite) nature of this plan, support Joseph as a restorer of a much more complete, detailed picture of the entire plan of eternal progression.

[_karl61]

Was Joseph Smith a mason when he made that statement?

[_Coggins7]

Does this settle the issue? Who agrees that the issue, as far as the "official' nature of the concept, is now settled for believing LDS, and who does not agree? Why?

Nothing is ever settled in a church which believes that the only thing permanent is change.

Any future "revelation" could Trump that at any time. Although I would concur that putting it in a teaching manual in 2008 gives it official credibility in 2008. Kind of like saying that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith had only one wife.

You may leave the arena of ideas now hana, as you have none of any substance to offer.

Derailment ahead: do not get out of your seats until the train comes to a compete stop...at the bottom of the ravine.

[_Coggins7]

No, but I understand he was a CEO in the Carlyle Group.

[_the road to hana]

You may leave the arena of ideas now hana, as you have none of any substance to offer.

This is the same argument that any good LDS apologist would make to you, Coggins. It's also the same argument that people like Juliann on MADB would make.

It really doesn't matter if it's official today, except that it's official today. It can be changed, in a church that touts "continuing revelation," at any time. The only constant in the LDS Church is change.

I would agree with you that it currently gives the statement more weight. If there's any such thing as official policy and doctrine in Mormonism, the teaching manuals are a good place to look for it.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

You may leave the arena of ideas now hana, as you have none of any substance to offer.

This is the same argument that any good LDS apologist would make to you, Coggins. It's also the same argument that people like Juliann on MADB would make.

It really doesn't matter if it's official today, except that it's official today. It can be changed, in a church that touts "continuing revelation," at any time. The only constant in the LDS Church is change.

I would agree with you that it currently gives the statement more weight. If there's any such thing as official policy and doctrine in Mormonism, the teaching manuals are a good place to look for it.

Its not an argument, simply an observation of your determined misrepresentations of both LDS teachings and culture, and the manner in which alleged "changes" in doctrine are understood in the Church. I understand, however, that you are not interested in either accuracy or intellectual substantiveness in your criticisms of the Gospel.

[_the road to hana]

You may leave the arena of ideas now hana, as you have none of any substance to offer.

This is the same argument that any good LDS apologist would make to you, Coggins. It's also the same argument that people like Juliann on MADB would make.

It really doesn't matter if it's official today, except that it's official today. It can be changed, in a church that touts "continuing revelation," at any time. The only constant in the LDS Church is change.

I would agree with you that it currently gives the statement more weight. If there's any such thing as official policy and doctrine in Mormonism, the teaching manuals are a good place to look for it.

Its not an argument, simply an observation of your determined misrepresentations of both LDS teachings and culture, and the manner in which alleged "changes" in doctrine is understood in the Church. I understand, however, that you are not interested in either accuracy or intellectual substantiveness in your criticisms of the Church.

I'd put my knowledge and experience of Mormonism up against yours any day. Any day.