Defining "Mormon Doctrine"

[Craig Paxton]

Please help us.

Start a new thread, examine each of the Articles of Faith -- the bedrock of Mormonism, and show us how they have changed over the years. I personally think you are full of baloney, but let's see what you got.

I think you are full of baloney, but why don't you show us that you really know what you are talking about.... or not, as you choose. Take the Articles of Faith and show us specifically how these doctrines are "shifting sands" of change.

I was challeneged in another thread to start the new thread on this subject. My initial reply is in specific response to "cdowis"'s post.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If so called Mormon doctrine was limited to these 13 statements of belief…Mormon Doctrine would be easy to describe, debate and understand. But you’ve created a false dichotomy, for certainly you are not suggesting that these 13 declarations of belief are Mormon Doctrine in its entirety are you?

In reality Mormon Doctrine is an opaque, shape shifting, ubiquitous mist that changes with every sign of societal pressure; bent on the preservation and survival of the ‘mother’ organization, Mormonism jettisons controversial core doctrines, abandoning principle in order to survive.

You asked about shifting sands of change....well...

When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival.

When faced with mounting social pressure and the complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America due to denying equal rights to African American men, the church jettisoned its racist doctrine.

To be respectful to this audience I will only say that the church did change its Temple endowment when it served its purposes.

When other Christian Religions turn a bright spot light on seemingly unchristian church doctrines...the church either denies the existence of these core doctrines or deemphasizes them to the point of obscenity. I’ll offer just a few examples of the many doctrines to which I refer.

01. As man is God once was

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

05. All Native American’s being the direct descendants of Lehi

When faced with the risk of having same sex marriage become the law of California, the church waged guerilla warfare in a failed hope that by forming a beachhead in California it could somehow stop the onslaught of societal change that was and is sweeping the nation, as more and more people come to the realization that denying any segment of our society their constitutional rights of being married to whomever they personally choose, is a basic human right. The question that nobody wants to answer is why would the church wage this war? It’s because if history is any indication, the church once again does not want to be put in a situation where it again has to bow to societal pressure and risk having to give up more of its core doctrines. Although I am not nor do I claim to have prophetic abilities, I predict that within the next 30 years same-sex marriage will become the law of the land( If not sooner), it will be common and a non-issue with the next generation AND the church will once again will be forced by societal pressure to abandon another core doctrine and conform on at least some rudimentary level or face the consequences of a society that will not stand for this kind of injustice. In other words the church will choose survival over principle and succumb to the tectonic shift that is taking place in society.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Mark Beesley]

I was challeneged in another thread to start the new thread on this subject. My initial reply is in specific response to "cdowis"'s post.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If so called Mormon doctrine was limited to these 13 statements of belief…Mormon Doctrine would be easy to describe, debate and understand. But you’ve created a false dichotomy, for certainly you are not suggesting that these 13 declarations of belief are Mormon Doctrine in its entirety are you?

In reality Mormon Doctrine is an opaque, shape shifting, ubiquitous mist that changes with every sign of societal pressure; bent on the preservation and survival of the ‘mother’ organization, Mormonism jettisons controversial core doctrines, abandoning principle in order to survive.

You asked about shifting sands of change....well...

When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival.

When faced with mounting social pressure and the complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America due to denying equal rights to African American men, the church jettisoned its racist doctrine.

To be respectful to this audience I will only say that the church did change its Temple endowment when it served its purposes.

When other Christian Religions turn a bright spot light on seemingly unchristian church doctrines...the church either denies the existence of these core doctrines or deemphasizes them to the point of obscenity. I’ll offer just a few examples of the many doctrines to which I refer.

01. As man is God once was

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

05. All Native American’s being the direct descendants of Lehi

When faced with the risk of having same sex marriage become the law of California, the church waged guerilla warfare in a failed hope that by forming a beachhead in California it could somehow stop the onslaught of societal change that was and is sweeping the nation, as more and more people come to the realization that denying any segment of our society their constitutional rights of being married to whomever they personally choose, is a basic human right. The question that nobody wants to answer is why would the church wage this war? It’s because if history is any indication, the church once again does not want to be put in a situation where it again has to bow to societal pressure and risk having to give up more of its core doctrines. Although I am not nor do I claim to have prophetic abilities, I predict that within the next 30 years same-sex marriage will become the law of the land( If not sooner), it will be common and a non-issue with the next generation AND the church will once again will be forced by societal pressure to abandon another core doctrine and conform on at least some rudimentary level or face the consequences of a society that will not stand for this kind of injustice. In other words the church will choose survival over principle and succumb to the tectonic shift that is taking place in society.

Why do you care?

[Jeff K.]

Is Craig Paxton arguing that all religious doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall or just "Mormon" doctrine? I would argue that given the general stance of Christianity, Mormon doctrine is one aspect of it with fairly well established rules and practices as to what is, or is not doctrinal, versus Episcopaleans, Baptists, and so on.... If we expand the view to theistic ideas, then Muslim doctrine also is difficult to "nail down" as are the Hindu sects, and don't even get me started in Buddhism.

So what is his point exactly?

By the way Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded (as I wave my hand).

[altersteve]

1. The Church does not deny that God was once as man is. We wholeheartedly believe that God the Father passed through mortality at some point, just like Jesus Christ did. To which degree God was like us, however, is a source of debate, even amongst Latter-day Saints.

2. The Church does not deny that we are all (Jesus and Satan included) children of God. We do not, however, claim that Jesus and Satan are "brothers" in any reasonable sense of the word, nor have they ever been.

3. I have never seen the Church deny that polygamy was practiced, nor have I ever seen a Church leader refuse to discuss polygamy, or say, "It's in the past now. Don't worry about it."

4. Humans ruling over their own planet is not, nor has it ever been, a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ, despite what critics will say.

5. LDS doctrine holds that Native Americans are the "seed of Lehi." That does not have to imply that they are his direct descendants.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

Incorrect.

LDS doctrine resides in the Standard Works of the Church. Namely The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenents, and those statements proclaimed by the unanimous agreement of the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

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.

"When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival".

Incorrect again. President Woodruff was fully prepared to continue the practice of polygamy if the Lord so desired it. Even if it meant the destruction of the Church. Further the Church still has polygamy as one of its Commandments. It is just is not practiced betweeen the living for now.

"When faced with mounting social pressure and the complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America due to denying equal rights to African American men, the church jettisoned its racist doctrine".

Wrong again. By the time the Priesthood Ban was lifted there was little resistance to The Church or BYU. Further it has NEVER been an issue of Equal Rights. NO ONE has the RIGHT to the Priesthood. Who gets to hold the Priesthoond and when is totally up to God. Further Blacks have always been welcome and have joined the Church since it inception. The LDS have NEVER segregated by race. If you are in a Wards boundaries that is where you go to your meetings.

I suggest that you study up on the history of "other Christian religions" which took hundreds of years longer than the LDS to allow Blacks the Priesthood. That the Southern Baptist church was founded on the principle that Blacks were NOT even human.

01. As man is God once was.

Jesus was never a man?

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan.

So God created Satan out of nothing to torment man?

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

So we should ignore the Prophets? That Didn't work out real well when people didn't listen the Noah.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets.

NOT a doctrine of the Church.

05. All Native American’s being the direct descendants of Lehi.

NOT a doctrine of the Church.

Just maybe you need to actually know what we believe BEFORE you TRY TO TELL us what we believe.

Last I heard Prop 8 passed in the State of California. Are you now claiming the LDS are to be barred from voting, just because they vote how you don't like?

I sure the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah felt the same way.

Where have we violate any of our principles? The overriding principle of the Church is and always has been found in Abraham 3:25

25. And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

Edited July 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Loran Blood]

You asked about shifting sands of change....well...

When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival.

No more than a tiny fraction of the membership relative to the whole was ever called to practice plural marriage, and that practice, unless a specific individual was called and mandated to its practice, is in no way essential to salvation or exaltation. Plural marriage is an appendage to Celestial marriage, and could thus be dispensed with for the time being. It was far more important that Temple worship continue, and the Church not be broken up by an out-of-control federal government, then to continue this one appendage at that time.

When faced with mounting social pressure and the complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America due to denying equal rights to African American men, the church jettisoned its racist doctrine.

This statement assumes what it seeks to prove, and provides no evidence to support the assumption. If social pressure had really been the issue, we would have expected the Church to cave much earlier in the seventies than it did. By 1978, the high tide of the civil rights movement had long since abated, and all that was left was the racial grievance industry. In any case, if you knew anything at all about the history of the lifting of the "priesthood ban,' you'd know that it had a long gestation period among the Brethren, going back well into the sixties, and had much more to do with the pleadings and remonstrances of foreign Latter day Saints in Africa than with the contemporary civil rights movement or indigenous "social pressure."

Futher, there was no "racist doctrine." That fails on several counts, not the least of which is that the ban was a policy that had no historical record or explanation as to its origins. The central theological explanations for it, offered over time by some GAs, were not "doctrine" but theological conjecture. As prophets are not considered infallible in this Church unless inspired by the Holy Spirit, we can look back and allow them that, as they came under the influence of the culture and attitudes of their time. All, such as David O' McKay, for example, were not as deeply influenced as were others.

To be respectful to this audience I will only say that the church did change its Temple endowment when it served its purposes.

And what purpose would that have been?

When other Christian Religions turn a bright spot light on seemingly unchristian church doctrines...the church either denies the existence of these core doctrines or deemphasizes them to the point of obscenity. I’ll offer just a few examples of the many doctrines to which I refer.

01. As man is God once was

Doctrine.

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

Doctrine.

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

Jedi Knights are pagan apostates, and cannot be rebaptized without full, sincere repentance.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

Doctrine.

05. All Native American’s being the direct descendants of Lehi

In some sense, this is clearly doctrinal.

Where, however, has the Church ever distanced itself from 01, 02, 04? 05 has developed in its meaning, but still remains correct for us in perhaps multiple senses.

When faced with the risk of having same sex marriage become the law of California, the church waged guerilla warfare in a failed hope that by forming a beachhead in California it could somehow stop the onslaught of societal change that was and is sweeping the nation, as more and more people come to the realization that denying any segment of our society their constitutional rights of being married to whomever they personally choose, is a basic human right.

The cat's out of the bag now, Craig. What you are onto here is culture war, and, while I'm more than happy to don the armor of God and leap into the arena with you, it should be clear at the outset that your entire worldview is pretty much at odds with that of the Church and its teachings, and that is what is driving your criticisms of it.

We have strong worldview differences here, and these are clearly animating your interpretation of certain events and the motives of Church leaders regarding various issues.

The question that nobody wants to answer is why would the church wage this war?

The Kulturkampf appears to by yours and yours alone, although it is true that the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan are in a war for the hearts and minds of God's children, and those on Satan's side are partial to a scorched earth means-justifies-ends approach to prosecution of their "war."

It’s because if history is any indication, the church once again does not want to be put in a situation where it again has to bow to societal pressure and risk having to give up more of its core doctrines.

Knowing what you're talking about and not misrepresenting the Church's actual doctrinal positions and their nuances is going to be key here. The Church has never given up a single "core doctrine" to my knowledge in its entire history. Plural marriage is still doctrinal, but the practice was curtailed. The "ban" was a policy, the doctrinal basis of which is indeed unclear, but no doctrine was altered in its elimination. The other doctrines you mentioned (save for the Jedi Knights) are still core doctrine, and still taught by the church, directly or indirectly in numerous venues.

Although I am not nor do I claim to have prophetic abilities, I predict that within the next 30 years same-sex marriage will become the law of the land( If not sooner),

I agree.

it will be common and a non-issue with the next generation

This is debatable. The pop culture and a majority of Americans may well decide to choose wickedness over righteousness, indeed, the Book of Mormon appears to warn the modern gentiles or precisely this eventuality. I doubt, however, that this will be unanimous or anything close to it.

AND the church will once again will be forced by societal pressure to abandon another core doctrine and conform on at least some rudimentary level or face the consequences of a society that will not stand for this kind of injustice.

Yet more tough talk and pious pseudo-moralizing from the breast beating, secular Annointed (I do like Pahoran's use of the Nietzschean term "immoralist," Nietzsche's own, if fact, as indicative of the general philosophical orientation) about how, inevitably, everyone is going to come to see things their way.

I actually like the idea of an eschaton and an ultimate settling of accounts according to eternal principles and laws much better.

The whole idea of a "clean slate" is just more appealing than a global Playboy mansion.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mark Beesley]

Beyond wondering why you care, or if you do care, I wonder why you take the approach you do.

If so called Mormon doctrine . . .

Right out of the box you use dsparaging language. It reveals a lack of respect on your part for the people with whom you wish to dialogue. The term "so-called Mormon doctrine" tells us that we don't really understand what doctrine is or means. Is that what you were intending to communicate?

In reality Mormon Doctrine is an opaque, shape shifting, ubiquitous mist that changes with every sign of societal pressure; bent on the preservation and survival of the ‘mother’ organization, Mormonism jettisons controversial core doctrines, abandoning principle in order to survive.

Thus, you set the stage for an acrimonious exchange. Some LDS may take the bait and respond in kind.

When the church was faced with financial ruin and given the choice to either abandon celestial marriage to more than one wife (in this life anyway) or be disenfranchised and have all of its assets seized by the federal government, the church chose survival.

There was no shift in doctrine. Section 132 is still part of the canon. The practice changed. Would you prefer a God who is completely non-responsive to the human condition, without empathy for mortal circumstances?

When faced with mounting social pressure and the complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America due to denying equal rights to African American men, the church jettisoned its racist doctrine.

Maybe you won't care, or maybe it won't matter, but if you will do some research, you will find that the priesthood ban was rooted in policy, not doctrine, and the policy changed because God is NOT without empathy for the mortal circumstance.

To be respectful to this audience I will only say that the church did change its Temple endowment when it served its purposes.

I guess a question or two for you would be in order:

1. Do you believe all LDS practices are synomous with doctrine?

2. If not, what do you understand to be the difference between a practice and a doctrine?

When other Christian Religions turn a bright spot light on seemingly unchristian church doctrines...the church either denies the existence of these core doctrines or deemphasizes them to the point of obscenity. I’ll offer just a few examples of the many doctrines to which I refer.

Individual opinions, comments and observations by members (whatever their position in the Church), cannot fairly be characterized as opinions, comments and observations of the Church. (See the link provided by thesometimesaint.)

01. As man is God once was.

CFR

Where has the Church (as opposed to an individual in the Church) denied the existence of this doctrine or deemphasized it to the point of obscenity? Where has the Church (as opposed to an indivdual in the Church) ever identified this as a core doctrine?

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

CFR

Where has the Church (as opposed to an individual in the Church) denied the existence of this doctrine or deemphasized it to the point of obscenity? Where has the Church (as opposed to an indivdual in the Church) ever identified this as a core doctrine?

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

Thanks for the comic-relief. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

CFR

Where has the Church (as opposed to an indivdual in the Church) ever identified this as a core doctrine?

Note: If it is a doctrine at all, I'm in trouble cause I don't believe it.

05. All Native American’s being the direct descendants of Lehi

CFR

Where has the Church (as opposed to an indivdual in the Church) ever identified this as a core doctrine?

When faced with the risk of having same sex marriage become the law of California, the church waged guerilla warfare in a failed hope that by forming a beachhead in California it could somehow stop the onslaught of societal change that was and is sweeping the nation, as more and more people come to the realization that denying any segment of our society their constitutional rights of being married to whomever they personally choose, is a basic human right. The question that nobody wants to answer is why would the church wage this war? It’s because if history is any indication, the church once again does not want to be put in a situation where it again has to bow to societal pressure and risk having to give up more of its core doctrines. Although I am not nor do I claim to have prophetic abilities, I predict that within the next 30 years same-sex marriage will become the law of the land( If not sooner), it will be common and a non-issue with the next generation AND the church will once again will be forced by societal pressure to abandon another core doctrine and conform on at least some rudimentary level or face the consequences of a society that will not stand for this kind of injustice. In other words the church will choose survival over principle and succumb to the tectonic shift that is taking place in society.

Hold your breath.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Loran Blood]

4. Humans ruling over their own planet is not, nor has it ever been, a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ, despite what critics will say.

This is incorrect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is incorrect.

It was my understanding that this doctrine was not official and had been speculated on by logical extension. I am not aware of any verse scripture that confirms directly that we will have our own planets.

[Bernard Gui]

When other Christian Religions turn a bright spot light on seemingly unchristian church doctrines...the church either denies the existence of these core doctrines or deemphasizes them to the point of obscenity. I’ll offer just a few examples of the many doctrines to which I refer.

You can take these off your list:

01. As man is God once was

Gospel Principles 2010, p.276

When we lived with our Heavenly Father, He explained a plan for our progression. We could become like Him, an exalted being.

p.279

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."

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

The first three chapters of Gospel Principles define the family of God, the relationship between his children, including Jesus and Satan.

03. The Jedi-knight waving of the hand whenever the subject of church polygamy is brought up…”that is not important now…it’s in our past”.

Other than that and disowning splinter groups who practice polygamy, there is nothing else to be said.

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

p.5

[God] made man in His own image to be a ruler over His other creations.

p.11

We learned that if we followed His plan, we would become like Him. We would be resurrected; we would have all power in heaven and on earth;

we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as He does.

Bernard

Edited July 28, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[altersteve]

This is incorrect.

In December 2007, FOXNews.com gave the Church a list of 21 questions to answer. One of the questions was:

Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

The Church's answer:

No.

http://www.foxnews.c...,317272,00.html

Edited July 28, 2011 by altersteve

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I should point out that "Mormon Doctrine" does not equal "Official Doctrine". And I am not talking about a the book.

[Loran Blood]

In December 2007, FOXNews.com gave the Church a list of 21 questions to answer. One of the questions was:

The Church's answer:

http://www.foxnews.c...,317272,00.html

Then something is really wrong somewhere, because the Church teaches that, at some point, we will become fully exalted beings and become gods, equal in power, knowledge, and intelligence to our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ, and that we will become creators of other worlds which will be peopled with our own spirit children. To those spirit children, we will be their Fathers and Mothers in Heaven, and we will "rule" over those worlds, as Gods (under the direction of our Father, we will be "Father in Heaven" and "God" to our own children on the worlds without end we will create).

Could someone help me out with this?

Was the question being responded to that somehow Mormons, in a resurrected state, would personally rule over other planets as physical inhabitants?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[altersteve]

Then something is really wrong somewhere, because the Church teaches that, at some point, we will become fully exalted beings and become gods, equal in power, knowledge, and intelligence to our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ, and that we will become creators of other worlds which will be peopled with our own spirit children. To those spirit children, we will be their Fathers and Mothers in Heaven, and we will "rule" over those worlds, as Gods (under the direction of our Father, we will be "Father in Heaven" and "God" to our own children on the worlds without end we will create).

Could someone help me out with this?

Was the question being responded to that somehow Mormons, in a resurrected state, would personally rule over other planets as physical inhabitants?

The Church teaches that we can be exalted, or become "gods," in a very loose sense. Certainly we will never be totally equal with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Peter wrote that we can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and Paul wrote that we can become like God, and "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), meaning that He will share with us a portion of His power and glory. That does not mean, however, that we will be able to create our own worlds. That has been taught by some Church leaders, but it is not officially taught by the Church, nor is the idea found in the standard works, which is the source of our doctrine. You are free to believe it, as many Latter-day Saints do, but others, including myself, are comfortable with rejecting such an idea.

[Loran Blood]

It was my understanding that this doctrine was not official and had been speculated on by logical extension. I am not aware of any verse scripture that confirms directly that we will have our own planets.

I have never heard from any general authority, or read anything from any Church leader who has spoken or written on this particular subject that the planets upon which our spirit children will be tested in their own mortal probation will be created for us. Indeed, as we will be fully equal to Jesus Christ in power, intelligence, and knowledge (while still under him as to priesthood authority), it seems logically odd that we would not, as co-creators with God and perfect glorified beings moving forward with him in the bringing to pass of the "immortality and eternal life" of man, as gods ourselves, become also creators and sustainers of world's and universes in our own right. This seems all a part of the natural continuity and progression the Lord desires for us. The whole idea of deification and "becoming like God" would appear to require it, in fact. The scriptures say "worlds without end," and set no limit to our power, ability, or kingdoms, save that all of it falls under priesthood law and is done under the direction of Jesus Christ, as he did all he did under the direction of the Father.

I'll tell you, Mola, the farther the Church and its teachings move away from the world, including sectarian Christianity, the more I like it.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[David T]

This is incorrect.

It would be more accurate to say preside over their own "Kingdom" rather than "ruling over a Planet", and even that with the caveat that is is still under the authority of God the Father. This is the doctrine. "Kingdom" has attempted to be defined by many, from the days of Joseph onward, and there are arguments for logical extensions to that which many are quite willing to make.

Edited July 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have never heard from any general authority, or read anything from any Church leader who has spoken or written on this particular subject that the planets upon which our spirit children will be tested in their own mortal probation will be created for us. Indeed, as we will be fully equal to Jesus Christ in power, intelligence, and knowledge (while still under him as to priesthood authority), it seems logically odd that we would not, as co-creators with God and perfect glorified beings moving forward with him in the bringing to pass of the "immortality and eternal life" of man, as gods ourselves, become also creators and sustainers of world's and universes in our own right. This seems all a part of the natural continuity and progression the Lord desires for us. The whole idea of deification and "becoming like God" would appear to require it, in fact. The scriptures say "worlds without end," and set no limit to our power, ability, or kingdoms, save that all of it falls under priesthood law and is done under the direction of Jesus Christ, as he did all he did under the direction of the Father.

I'll tell you, Mola, the farther the Church and its teachings move away from the world, including sectarian Christianity, the more I like it.

I want you to know, that I don't doubt any of this. And is more than likely is all true. I am just stating that there is nothing in the scriptures that say it explicitly. I have argued many of these same points. And it is very compelling. I am not even saying it is false doctrine. My only comment is that it seems to not be official doctrine.

And I agree with your last statement. I would also state that I would not be surprised to see this become fully official doctrine in the future.

[Vance]

I was challeneged in another thread to start the new thread on this subject. My initial reply is in

. . . .

SNIP

. . . .

church will choose survival over principle and succumb to the tectonic shift that is taking place in society.

BORING!!

[blackstrap]

If one reads the question carefully the correct answer IS NO. We will reside on a celestial world which does not YET exist and is not another planet,but THIS one after a major change.To say that we will "rule" there is not correct because Christ will rule.

Edited July 28, 2011 by blackstrap

[BCSpace]

If so called Mormon doctrine was limited to these 13 statements of belief…Mormon Doctrine would be easy to describe, debate and understand. But you’ve created a false dichotomy, for certainly you are not suggesting that these 13 declarations of belief are Mormon Doctrine in its entirety are you?

It appears that he merely said they were the bedrock and not all the doctrine. Official LDS doctrine is identified by official publication (by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) unless otherwise noted. Where there is conflict, you take the latest date. Since we do believe in continuing revelation, official doctrine can and has changed. The interesting thing is that on some of the most controversial subjects where people think the doctrine has changed it really hasn't changed. Examples would be priesthood denied because of descent and plural marriage.

Do we have some doctrines that seem to conflict with each other? Possibly. Do some indiviudals disagree with or have a hard time accepting certain doctrines? Yes, I myself disagree with some (hopefully) minor doctrines). Do some of those same individuals deny that those doctrines are doctrines? Yes, but I am not one of those. This of course would be the source of one's confusion. But the bottom line is that the Church has clearly stated what it considers to be doctrine despite what other indivudals think and a concise statement is provided in a link in my siggy. The 15 prophets and apostles establish the doctrine wich is then published. The source for these doctrines are interpretations of the scriptures and modern revelations which by definition, are scripture also.

The basis for all this was established in 1835 with D&C 107.

[Loran Blood]

The Church teaches that we can be exalted, or become "gods," in a very loose sense. Certainly we will never be totally equal with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

This is just plain false, and is not the doctrine of the gospel.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son (Revelation 21:7).

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21).

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them D&C 132: 20).

A vast and consistent body of teachings and statements of numerous General Authorities could be deployed here in support of the clear and unambiguous doctrine of theosis in the restored gospel. In no sense has it ever been "loose" or delimited except in the sense of everything occurring under the direction or authority of those who came before us in priesthood authority, which in our case is the Lord, Jesus Christ, and his Father.

Peter wrote that we can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and Paul wrote that we can become like God, and "joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), meaning that He will share with us a portion of His power and glory. That does not mean, however, that we will be able to create our own worlds.

False, this is exactly what it means, according to the unanimous teachings of all the Prophets of this dispensation, from Joseph until the present time.

That has been taught by some Church leaders, but it is not officially taught by the Church, nor is the idea found in the standard works, which is the source of our doctrine.

False. It has been taught by every Church leader who has ever spoken upon the subject in any official or unofficial capacity. Further, the scriptures are not the sole source of doctrine in the Church. This is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, not traditional sectarian Christianity with its closed canon and once and for all "deposit" of faith corralled in ancient, already written scriptural texts.

You are free to believe it, as many Latter-day Saints do, but others, including myself, are comfortable with rejecting such an idea.

Then I would propose that you are in process of teaching "another gospel," which, of course, you are also free to do.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[blackstrap]

We are talking ETERNITY here.That is a very long'time'.Any doctrine that establishes a boundary to my existence damns me for eternity.

[Loran Blood]

Its rather interesting me how some are beginning to run away from the full import of the concept of deification in the restored gospel, the reasons for which appear to me a bit abstruse, but represent an unwillingness to go all the way into the deep end of the pool as to its obvious and clearly articulated (by substantial numbers of General Authorities) implications. Virtually no one I knew in my youth, as I went through Institute and studied the words of the living prophets, was slinking away from the full import of this doctrine as I've come to see it expressed now among some "internet" LDS.

But then again, the endless dust ups over what constitutes "official doctrine" and the labeling of every church teaching with which one had a personal or philosophical problem as the "personal opinion" of the General Authority in question, and everything with which one had no particular problem (at that time) as "official doctrine" did not come up too much.

I really do think the church is in a long and sustained "weeding out" process in which those who wish to retain parts of the gospel, but discard others, will be sifted out from amongst those who are willing and desirous to accept the entire system and live by "every word that proceedth forth from the mouth of God," and not just the words compatible with personal notions, traditions, perceptual conditioning, and philosophy.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then I would propose that you are in process of teaching "another gospel," which, of course, you are also free to do.

On this point that you were responding to, I would be cautious in rejecting the idea of having our own planets. I think logically it makes a lot of sense. If we are like HF, which the scriptures teach quite unambiguously, then it seems quite reasonable that we will do what he does. One of those things is create planets and stars and moons. Is this expressly taught in scripture? No. But by logical extension one can come to this conclusion.

I recognize as official doctrine, the cannon, any talk given at GC and current materials published by the church with the church logo on it. If it does not fit under that then it is not official doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

When we become Gods in our own right we will still be doing so under God the Fathers' direction. He will ALWAYS be our God. We will NEVER be independent of him.