Do Mormon's teach that God was once a man?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Depends on what they are using their reasoning skills for, and what the conclusions are, and if they are humble enough to receive instruction.

What does it matter what their conclusions are if it is a matter that has not been cleared up by church authorities?...

"We don't know what the answer is, but we don't like your answer, so get out."

Nice.

[Jeff K.]

You presume perfect reasoning skills. I would say that alone is enough to constitute a lack of "reasoning".

How about "We aren't sure what the answer is, but we know your answer isn't the right one. If you disagree you are free to start your own church and preach the doctrine you feel is important. No one forces you to remain in ours."

[ELF1024]

If it's not that important then they need to stop disfellowshipping people for using their reasoning skills to come to their own conclusions about said issues.

CFR that people are being disfellowedshipped for opinions not realted to doctines with conclusive answers.

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Good and faithful members of the Church have been discussing differing interpretations of the Scriptures since the beginning of the Church. About the only time those disagreements involve Church disciplinary action is where established Church doctrine or specific leaders are repeatedly called into question after Church counsel has been given. If Hugh Nibley can believe in a local albeit massive flood and remain a valuable and valued member of the Church, I feel I'm in good company.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You presume perfect reasoning skills. I would say that alone is enough to constitute a lack of "reasoning".

How so?

How about "We aren't sure what the answer is, but we know your answer isn't the right one. If you disagree you are free to start your own church and preach the doctrine you feel is important. No one forces you to remain in ours."

If they don't know the answer, how do they know the one proffered "isn't the right one.". To tell someone their answer is wrong implies knowledge of the right answer.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

CFR that people are being disfellowedshipped for opinions not realted to doctines with conclusive answers.

the "September 7" or whatever you call them?

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Just because I don't know the right answer to a question doesn't make all competing answers equal valid.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Just because I don't know the right answer to a question doesn't make all competing answers equal valid.

Wait... so the speculative answer to a unanswered question isn't valid unless you deem it valid?

You guys confuse me sometimes.

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

The "September 6" were excommunicated in September 1993 for speaking against Church doctrine and leadership.

For more on them See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

While I usually try to buttress my thoughts with the thoughts of others. Anything I say here IS just my personal speculation.

[ERayR]

I would speculate that this is speculation as well.

To some his very existence is speculation.

[Jeff K.]

How so?

If they don't know the answer, how do they know the one proffered "isn't the right one.". To tell someone their answer is wrong implies knowledge of the right answer.

Your reasoning skills are well hidden.

Me: "How far away is the moon in inches?"

You: "Two inches"

Me: "I am sorry that is wrong"

You: "Well then how far away is it in inches"?

Me: "I am not sure"

You: If you don't know the answer, how do they know the one proffered "isn't the right one.".

[cinepro]

semlogo:

I of course can only speak for myself and not every average member. But there has been disagreements over what is unofficial and official doctrine from long before the internet was a research project of DARPA.

Indeed, I suspect the conversation started shortly after the first time Joseph Smith said something someone didn't want to believe.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

Other than the basics I have no idea what an "average" member should believe. BRM's Mormon Doctrine has been discussed and cussed when I was first learning about the Church 40 years ago. I remember well the informal discussions on where the "narrow neck of land" is, and how big were the Nephite, and Lamanite lands. It was commonly believed and taught that they were hemispheric in size. I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I am glad to see that my ideas, not that I'm first let alone only one to have them, are gaining in acceptance. The list is almost endless of points of disputed interpretations of the Scriptures on which the LDS in good faith disagree upon.

The final answer on what Gods' mortal existence(if he had any) was like has not yet been received. That's leaves only two possibilities that I can think of. Either it isn't all that important to our salvation, or God has not yet told us for his own reasons.

BRM's Mormon Doctrine is a great example. All of that controversial stuff was doctrine to me and my peer group growing up. We accepted it as doctrine, even if we didn't like all of it. We weren't heretics, we were regular members. Now it's not doctrine. But what does it matter whether it has some technical, nit picky stamp of "official" or "unofficial" when it's something that is taught widely in the wards and stakes of the church and believed by the members? "Official" or "unofficial" has no practical significance, and does not speak to what is taught and believed.

IMO a more accurate designation would correct vs incorrect doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

semlogo:

I still have my yellowed, tattered, and torn old copy of "Mormon Doctrine". I've never accepted it as LDS Doctrine, though I believe there are some entries that coincide with actual LDS doctrine.

I don't believe I'm all that unique in not accepting it, and I'm still a faithful member after all these years. One of the things I've always loved about the Church is its willingness to accept new and perhaps unpopular knowledge(facts) from whatever source they come, while its members retain a complete faith in God, his Son, and the Church.

To give give but one example. IF my beloved nonLDS grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese. Without first checking and finding what her church actually believed. Would it be fair to say that her church had that as its official doctrine?

Official doctrines of any church can be correct or incorrect. I don't believe I would go to the Westboro Baptist church for what is correct or incorrect, but it still may be a official doctrine of theirs.

[Senator]

I agree, and so it is not established, it is not doctrine.

..not "well" established...

Regardless, I tend to ignore the doctrine/not doctrine game in the church, and simply take into account what has and has not been taught.

[Jeff K.]

Doctrine is to "well established" as the ocean is to a lake. The lake may be large, but it is not an ocean.

And Bruce R. McConkie, who's book "Mormon Doctrine" sits in my room and is an excellent source, was never considered doctrine by my seminary teacher, my bishop, my branch president or a number of other people including myself. I just think its a great book that articulates some well thought out opinions. That last part was a quote from my Stake President decades ago.

Maybe its a Utah, CA thing.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I still have my yellowed, tattered, and torn old copy of "Mormon Doctrine". I've never accepted it as LDS Doctrine, though I believe there are some entries that coincide with actual LDS doctrine.

I don't believe I'm all that unique in not accepting it, and I'm still a faithful member after all these years. One of the things I've always loved about the Church is its willingness to accept new and perhaps unpopular knowledge(facts) from whatever source they come, while its members retain a complete faith in God, his Son, and the Church.

To give give but one example. IF my beloved nonLDS grandmother believed the moon was made of green cheese. Without first checking and finding what her church actually believed. Would it be fair to say that her church had that as its official doctrine?

Official doctrines of any church can be correct or incorrect. I don't believe I would go to the Westboro Baptist church for what is correct or incorrect, but it still may be a official doctrine of theirs.

At least in my ward growing up, it was widely accepted at face value as "Mormon Doctrine."

[Calm]

semlogo:

Other than the basics I have no idea what an "average" member should believe. BRM's Mormon Doctrine has been discussed and cussed when I was first learning about the Church 40 years ago. I remember well the informal discussions on where the "narrow neck of land" is, and how big were the Nephite, and Lamanite lands. It was commonly believed and taught that they were hemispheric in size. I didn't believe it then, and don't believe it now. I am glad to see that my ideas, not that I'm first let alone only one to have them, are gaining in acceptance. The list is almost endless of points of disputed interpretations of the Scriptures on which the LDS in good faith disagree upon.

The final answer on what Gods' mortal existence(if he had any) was like has not yet been received. That's leaves only two possibilities that I can think of. Either it isn't all that important to our salvation, or God has not yet told us for his own reasons.

There has not been one member that I have known that has agreed on every point taught by another member at church.

The issue, I believe, is what is it that the Church teaches and does this include everything every member in good standing has taught from the pulpit or in class or from some leadership position or is it something else.

If it is "something else" then I think there is a very good point in determining what is and what is not "official doctrine".

[evangelist]

That's not really the same thing. It was the gentiles and non-Levites who were denied the priesthood (ie 99.9% of the world). They weren't singling out blacks. The gentiles got the priesthood in New Testament times. Africans are gentiles too.

Good observation!

one love

[Jeff K.]

Singling any group is singling out regardless of who your family was or wasn't, or line of descendency.

[evangelist]

Singling any group is singling out regardless of who your family was or wasn't, or line of descendency.

Thank God that God doesn't have no respect of person!

one love

[Jeff K.]

Nor does God indulge in double negatives! However given the Levite question, apparently it is something else than "respecting persons" that comes into play.

If someone wants to live the Levite lifestyle, then why can't they be a Levite?

[ERayR]

Doctrine is to "well established" as the ocean is to a lake. The lake may be large, but it is not an ocean.

And Bruce R. McConkie, who's book "Mormon Doctrine" sits in my room and is an excellent source, was never considered doctrine by my seminary teacher, my bishop, my branch president or a number of other people including myself. I just think its a great book that articulates some well thought out opinions. That last part was a quote from my Stake President decades ago.

Maybe its a Utah, CA thing.

Nope, its not just a Utah thing.

[semlogo]

Singling any group is singling out regardless of who your family was or wasn't, or line of descendency.

I'm not sure "singling out" is the appropriate term when applied to 99.99% of the world.