Lareliw Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 But how can you choose which part of the Bible to be literal about? And I still do not understand the idea of Creation from an LDS standpoint. It seems like a neverending backwards infinity.
zelder Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 But how can you choose which part of the Bible to be literal about? And I still do not understand the idea of Creation from an LDS standpoint. It seems like a neverending backwards infinity.Dont worry much about the creation. All you need to believe is that God is the creator, human beings are in a fallen state and Jesus provides salvation to all the fallen and lost souls. Focus on loving God and loving your neighbor and going good. Thats all that matters.
Lareliw Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 I do believe those things, but I think understanding Creation the best that we can is not a negative thing, especially with evolution trying to creep in everywhere to "disprove" creationism. I have been reading some of the suggested works that I was given here regarding a more classical definition of "monotheism" but I am still having difficulty with the notion that God, Heavenly Father, is not the "only" God in existence, and that "some being" created Him. Dont worry much about the creation. All you need to believe is that God is the creator, human beings are in a fallen state and Jesus provides salvation to all the fallen and lost souls. Focus on loving God and loving your neighbor and going good. Thats all that matters.
TAO Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 Do we agree that it takes the unanimous decision of the Apostles for something to be declared revelation for the world aka the will of the Lord?Nah, I do not agree. What the Lord wills as revelation is revelation. Some things are, some things aren't. Some things are opinions, some aren't. But I won't put this restriction upon it.
Calm Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 but I am still having difficulty with the notion..... that "some being" created Him. Good thing that last bit is not LDS doctrine. No one created God the Father (or God the Son or God the Spirit). They are all eternal beings.....just as man is. Just remember not to assume this means that they are like what men are assumed to be like by most other Christians, rather man is like God in this fashion. Whether God became God (as in took on the role of God) some time in that eternal past is something that LDS speculate about, but there is nothing one is required to believe save that we do believe that God takes part in eternal progression and there is a system he is using which allows us, through his work, to do so as well. This may mean that someone used the same system sometime in the eternal past to enable God to partake in the divine nature or eternal progression or it may simply mean he has had that ability all along on his own or it may mean something else we are entirely unaware of at this time. Since we don't know, it's not something you need to invest that much time into understanding save to understand that there are a lot of different ideas of the eternal past among LDS.It is possible in my view that quality which allowed God to take on the role of God was always a part of him and is a part of Christ and the Spirit and that is why they were chosen for the roles they have in helping mankind---who do not have that quality inherently, but gain it through oneness with God. Not sure if that makes sense to you, but as an analogy in mortality I are talking about the difference between a self-made billionaire (the Father), an oldest son (Christ) who worked by his side to make those billions, another son (the Holy Ghost) who acts the part of a secretary helping his siblings make contact with Father and Elder Brother and the rest of his children (mankind) who inherit those billions just by acknowledging that they (as dependents) belong and owe it all to the self-made man and their two brothers. Since we are talking about mortality in the analogy, there is a time when the father did not have his billions, but you could look on it as him always having the abilities that would later bring him those billions (and all the power and glory and honour etc.), he just needed a time and place and a purpose to put those abilities to work....which purpose turns out to be the betterment of his family.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 Nah, I do not agree. What the Lord wills as revelation is revelation. Some things are, some things aren't. Some things are opinions, some aren't. But I won't put this restriction upon it.Well the LDS Church does as far as I have been taught for 6 years. You need a unanimous declaration of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles to help prevent the error of men from making false doctrine.
Questing Beast Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 ...Most of us Saints believe that it took millions and billions of years for God to create this earth, and we know, by doctrine, that there was no creatio ex nihil, a creation from nothing. We do not suffer from the affliction of having to explain how God made stars hundreds and billions of light years away and that their light all first arrived on the same "day", nor how the sun and the moon were created on the same day. God has told us that He organized the elements of our universe for us, and that the creation accounts in scripture are illustrative of His power and care for us. We are not literalists for this part of the word of God. LehiYou are one of Bruce R. McConkie's seven types of deadly heretic, number two in fact: trying to reconcile organic evolution (billions of years of evolving life) with science: "Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized."I don't have much respect for literalists either, and Bruce R. was their "king". The scientific approach to explaining empirical reality is the only valid method by which we utilize our "God-given" sapience. Observation, evidence and facts are not to be dismissed in favor of the revealed word originating out of the Bronze Age and perpetuated by countless generations of literalists....
Questing Beast Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 ... I think understanding Creation the best that we can is not a negative thing, especially with evolution trying to creep in everywhere to "disprove" creationism. I have been reading some of the suggested works that I was given here regarding a more classical definition of "monotheism" but I am still having difficulty with the notion that God, Heavenly Father, is not the "only" God in existence, and that "some being" created Him. Mormons are polytheists in the sense that they believe in the existence of an infinity of gods. Brigham Young and others taught that God the Father is the only god with which we have to do (deal with). He is the only God of this world (the universe that we observe), the only one worshiped. The necessary cause of existence in the first place is not addressed by Mormon theology....
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 25, 2011 Posted February 25, 2011 Mormons are polytheists in the sense that they believe in the existence of an infinity of gods. Brigham Young and others taught that God the Father is the only god with which we have to do (deal with). He is the only God of this world (the universe that we observe), the only one worshiped. The necessary cause of existence in the first place is not addressed by Mormon theology....This is not polytheism it's henotheism, many Gids, but we only worship 1 God.
Pahoran Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 You are one of Bruce R. McConkie's seven types of deadly heretic, number two in fact: trying to reconcile organic evolution (billions of years of evolving life) with science: "Heresy two concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized."Actually Lehi's post doesn't say anything about "organic evolution." He talked about the light from stars billions of light years away.Mormons are polytheists in the sense that they believe in the existence of an infinity of gods.Mormons are polytheists in no sense. That is nothing more than a facile manipulation of labels. While some Latter-day Saints contemplate the theoretical possibility of other divine beings, we don't have any doctrines or folklore about them, and we worship only the Father in the name of the Son. Brigham Young and others taught that God the Father is the only god with which we have to do (deal with). He is the only God of this world (the universe that we observe), the only one worshiped. The necessary cause of existence in the first place is not addressed by Mormon theology....It's true; our "theology" is based upon divinely revealed narratives, and remains as yet uncorrupted by hellenistic speculation.Maybe not everything fits into nice neat little categories all the time.Regards,Pahoran
TAO Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Well the LDS Church does as far as I have been taught for 6 years. You need a unanimous declaration of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles to help prevent the error of men from making false doctrine.Nah, sir, that is doctrine, not revelation you speak of. Doctrine is revelation universally accepted throughout the church. Revelation can be received in other means - and ofttimes comes through other means, but it doesn't classify as doctrine in those cases. Revelation outside of doctrine can be useful as well, so I wouldn't discount it - personal revelation is just one type of it. Bishops may also receive revelation for their ward, and Stake President's for their stakes, etc. It's still revelation - just not doctrine.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 1, 2011 Posted March 1, 2011 Nah, sir, that is doctrine, not revelation you speak of. Doctrine is revelation universally accepted throughout the church. Revelation can be received in other means - and ofttimes comes through other means, but it doesn't classify as doctrine in those cases. Revelation outside of doctrine can be useful as well, so I wouldn't discount it - personal revelation is just one type of it. Bishops may also receive revelation for their ward, and Stake President's for their stakes, etc. It's still revelation - just not doctrine.If personal/family/ward/stake/area/ect revelation conflicts with doctrine one must conclude that it is deception from Satan not revealed truth. No revelation outside of (and most cases including) the Apostles will conflict with the doctrine and standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if it does stick to the known truth instead of potentially falling into a deception of Lucifer.
TAO Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 If personal/family/ward/stake/area/ect revelation conflicts with doctrine one must conclude that it is deception from Satan not revealed truth. No revelation outside of (and most cases including) the Apostles will conflict with the doctrine and standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if it does stick to the known truth instead of potentially falling into a deception of Lucifer.Of course. But as has been pointed out - JFS's statement doesn't conflict with doctrine. It still can be revelation, and even if it isn't, it truly is wisdom to do as the Lord commands, no?To be quite honest, I think revelation occurs everywhere - all those tender mercies count as a form of revelation to me, reminding me that my HF is there and that he loves me. =D
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 It still can be revelation, and even if it isn't, it truly is wisdom to do as the Lord commands, no?First off no it can't be revelation in the manner you speak of because that revelation (revelation for the Church/World must happen through the unanimous decision of the Apostles. Second please show me where God commands mankind to practice polygamy?"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; . . . For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;" (Jacob 2: 27, 30)God commands us to have only 1 wife and no concubines, unless he commands us otherwise. So JFS's belief is in conflict with the ancient revealed will of the Lord found in Jacob and the modern revealed will of the lord given to his prophet Wilford Woodruff.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 But how can you choose which part of the Bible to be literal about? And I still do not understand the idea of Creation from an LDS standpoint. It seems like a neverending backwards infinity.We know like we know all things through the Prophets and the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost, it is far from a perfect system but it is the best thing we got.
TAO Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 First off no it can't be revelation in the manner you speak of because that revelation (revelation for the Church/World must happen through the unanimous decision of the Apostles.No, I keep telling you that is the definition of doctrine. Not all revelation is doctrine, there is a difference.Second please show me where God commands mankind to practice polygamy?First off, it wasn't mankind. Just the church - and I don't even think it was the whole church. Just people the Lord wished.Second of all, if we read D&C 132:37, we can see he has commanded in the past:Abraham received aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.So where is the commandment? Specifically, it is right here:D&C 132:40I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an aappointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.And also here:D&C 132:63But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified."Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; . . . For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;" (Jacob 2: 27, 30)God commands us to have only 1 wife and no concubines, unless he commands us otherwise. So JFS's belief is in conflict with the ancient revealed will of the Lord found in Jacob and the modern revealed will of the lord given to his prophet Wilford Woodruff. Read D&C 132. It says clearly:D&C 132:61And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood
wcapurro Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)JD 20:28Was Smith right or wrong?
wcapurro Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Now might be a good time for the Church to contact Charlie Sheen. It seems he is also embracing the concept of plural marriage.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.