Defining "Mormon Doctrine"

[Loran Blood]

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.

Why are you telling me this, as I've already mentioned it clearly, I think twice now in my posts above?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why are you telling me this, as I've already mentioned it clearly, I think twice now in my posts above?

I would add, that no one has denied that either.

[altersteve]

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

Well, as long as accusing me of apostatizing makes you feel better about yourself, then that's what's important.

The fact is that I have no reason to believe that humans can create and rule over their own planets, especially in light of the fact that it is not scriptural, and because it has not been officially accepted by Church leaders or sustained by the Church membership as official doctrine, and because the Church stated that it is not an official doctrine in the interview with FOXNews that I showed you—and especially because it just doesn't jibe with what I have been taught about my Savior. I'm not rejecting the doctrine of deification, or that angels will be subject to us, or that we will sit on thrones or inherit all things as Christ promised, or that we will be given all power, but I interpret that to mean that we will be given all power to do God's will, not that we will become omnipotent deities or be given all the power that God has. We don't have the ability to comprehend what it means to sit on the throne of God and be heirs, with Jesus Christ, of all things. The fact that you and I disagree about what the afterlife will be like, or what our promised unity with Christ entails, does not give you the right to make unfounded and rather offensive accusations of me beginning to preaching another gospel.

Remember, the whole doctrine of exaltation is to live eternally with God again, and to progress eternally to become like Him. What will happen during that time is unclear to us, and is something that I don't spend much time thinking about at all. I focus instead on trying to be Christlike right now. To be honest, I don't think that's "another gospel."

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.

Yes, we are commanded to live every word that God says. But not every word that a prophet, a fallible human being, says is the "word of God." The Church has made this clear:

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.

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

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.

Maybe. But it does imply an infinite regression of gods, which has some logical problems and is something that, quite simply, I also don't believe in. The idea simply doesn't rest well with me.

Edited July 28, 2011 by altersteve

[cinepro]

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.

While I wouldn't word it quite so drastically, it seems that the trickiest thing for each member in defining what "doctrine" is is to find a definition that doesn't accidentally qualify something you don't agree with as "doctrine".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While I wouldn't word it quite so drastically, it seems that the trickiest thing for each member in defining what "doctrine" is is to find a definition that doesn't accidentally qualify something you don't agree with as "doctrine".

I laid mine out. I don't think there is anything that I might "accidentally qualify something you don't agree with as "doctrine"."

Oh, you were speaking about yourself here. I get it.

[Loran Blood]

Well, as long as accusing me of apostatizing makes you feel better about yourself, then that's what's important.

We are to create, sustain, people, and redeem our own worlds, in our own endless, endlessly developing kingdoms, worlds without end, for all eternity, following the eternal pattern also followed by our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ, and all gods that ever existed before them, worlds, universes, and kingdoms without end into the infinite, beginningless past. We are to "come follow" Christ and our Father in bringing to pass the exaltation of our own spirit children, on planets it will be our responsibility, joy, and glory to create, sustain, and posses, under the direction and priesthood authority of Jesus Christ, in endless profusion and proliferation, without end, limit, or boundary.

That is what I have been taught since I was old enough to be taught, and what I have read from every General Authority source I have ever had in my possession that discussed this particular subject at any length.

I'm not at all sure of what the reticence is in diluting and watering down the teachings of the church such as to mitigate the full impact of the doctrine of deification, but attempt some are intent on doing. While the creation of our own planets may seem to be peripheral, I would argue that, not only has it been clearly and consistently taught in this dispensation by numerous General Authorities, it is not a stretch to see it as logically required by the broader doctrine of exaltation itself. Your claim that we are never to by fully equal to our Father in Heaven or Jesus Christ is clearly incorrect, as articulated in lucid terms in our own scriptures. In priesthood authority we will always be working under the direction and auspices of Jesus Christ, just has he does all he does under the direction and authority of the Father. His personal attributes, powers, and nature, however, are in all ways equal to those of the Father. Our personal attributes and capacities will likewise by fully equal to those of Jesus Christ (we will have "all power," inherit "all things," and sit down in Christ's throne as he sat down - just as he sat down - in his Father's throne). We will have all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, and all things will be subject to us. We will be gods, and hence, in all things, through all things, and round about all things. All of this will still be within a context of hierarchical priesthood authority, but this nowhere in the scriptures or teachings of the Brethren limits or curtails our personal attributes as perfect, exalted beings.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Pahoran]

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.

What a tissue of meaningless nonsense.

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.

For, had the Church been destroyed, that would certainly have put and end to the practice anyway, as President Woodruff pointed out.

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.

Really? In what alternative universe did that happen?

I was there. There was no "mounting social pressure." The "social pressure" had long ago dismounted and wandered off into the sunset. The "complete shunning of its prized BYU sports program by all of the universities in America" was a pipe dream that was never going to materialise. A decade earlier, at the height of the "protest everything" fad at universities, two or maybe three schools had made an issue of it. By 1978, with BYU offering increasing numbers of athletic scholarships to black students, the pendulum was swinging back the other way.

And since the Priesthood is not, and never has been, a "right," the assertion that the Church was then "denying equal rights to African American men" is demonstrably false, and the most charitable explanation for your use of that expression is that you are rather spectacularly uninformed.

To be respectful to this audience

For a change

I will only say that the church did change its Temple endowment when it served its purposes.

And you have absolutely no reason to suppose that any "societal pressure" had anything to do with that.

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

Not denied. How is the rather unremarkable fact that it is not emphasised an "obscenity?" You have a strange (morbidly hostile) notion of "obscenity."

02. The pre-existence relationship of Jesus and Satan

When sub-Christians sensationalise that, they are of course distorting it beyond recognition. It is a fact that all spirits were pre-existent brothers and sisters. It is not a fact, and has never been any part of LDS doctrine, that there was any special or close "relationship" between Jesus and Satan. If you disagree, please provide references.

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”.

Do you deny that?

04. Human’s eventually creating their own planets

CFR, please.

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

And what, precisely, is "unchristian" about that? Even "seemingly?" And in what sense do you assert that it is or ever was a "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.

Speaking of "obscenity"....

You understand, of course, that "come to the realization" is an unusual way to spell "swallow the propaganda."

And it was in nowise "guerilla warfare." Do you do all your "thinking" in these kinds of meaningless cliches?

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.

And what does that pile of cliches and bumper-sticker slogans actually mean? "Succumb" how, exactly? Are you really saying that you expect to see same sex couples being sealed in the temples of the Church? When hormonal teenagers who sleep together before marriage are still subject to Church discipline, how can you possibly imagine that we're about to cave in to really gross immorality?

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

We are to create, sustain, people, and redeem our own worlds, in our own endless, endlessly developing kingdoms, worlds without end, for all eternity, following the eternal pattern also followed by our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ, and all gods that ever existed before them, worlds, universes, and kingdoms without end into the infinite, beginningless past. We are to "come follow" Christ and our Father in bringing to pass the exaltation of our own spirit children, on planets it will be our responsibility, joy, and glory to create, sustain, and posses, under the direction and priesthood authority of Jesus Christ, in endless profusion and proliferation, without end, limit, or boundary.

That is what I have been taught since I was old enough to be taught, and what I have read from every General Authority source I have ever had in my possession that discussed this particular subject at any length.

I'm not at all sure of what the reticence is in diluting and watering down the teachings of the church such as to mitigate the full impact of the doctrine of deification, but attempt some are intent on doing. While the creation of our own planets may seem to be peripheral, I would argue that, not only has it been clearly and consistently taught in this dispensation by numerous General Authorities, it is not a stretch to see it as logically required by the broader doctrine of exaltation itself. Your claim that we are never to by fully equal to our Father in Heaven or Jesus Christ is clearly incorrect, as articulated in lucid terms in our own scriptures. In priesthood authority we will always be working under the direction and auspices of Jesus Christ, just has he does all he does under the direction and authority of the Father. His personal attributes, powers, and nature, however, are in all ways equal to those of the Father. Our personal attributes and capacities will likewise by fully equal to those of Jesus Christ (we will have "all power," inherit "all things," and sit down in Christ's throne as he sat down - just as he sat down - in his Father's throne). We will have all power, all knowledge, all wisdom, and all things will be subject to us. We will be gods, and hence, in all things, through all things, and round about all things. All of this will still be within a context of hierarchical priesthood authority, but this nowhere in the scriptures or teachings of the Brethren limits or curtails our personal attributes as perfect, exalted beings.

Again, I have no problem believing in the doctrine of deification. I have no problem that we will be given "all power," and that we will "inherit all things" in Christ, and that we will share Christ's throne with Him. I embrace that fully. I just do not believe that we have the power, as the Father and the Son do, to create worlds. All worlds, as the Book of Moses states, were and are created by the power of God's Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Creator: through and by Him all things come into being. The Father and the Son, as Joseph Smith taught, each had the power to lay down their life and take it back up again—a power which we obviously do not share. Surely God, as the God of gods, has other "gods" who act under His authority and direction, and when we become exalted, we also enter into that state, where we may live peacefully and happily in families and with our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother, and with our Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Redeemer, the Savior, and the King of all. When I think of creating our own worlds, and "redeeming" our own worlds, that replaces my Savior, and I am not comfortable with such a thought. If it is God's will for us to assist Him in the creation of future worlds, then certainly we will be able to do that. But we will do God's will, and God's will only.

Edited July 28, 2011 by altersteve

[Loran Blood]

The fact is that I have no reason to believe that humans can create and rule over their own planets, especially in light of the fact that it is not in the scriptures,

I would argue that it most patently is in the scriptures, in particular by clear implication in the one's I quoted. I could also quote the inspired statements of a number of the Brethren, if I were willing to do the leg work of drumming up the quotations, but as you will only, it seems, like an evangelical Protestant, accept the scriptures as the sole source of doctrine, I fear that leg work would be a fair waste of time.

and because it has not been officially accepted by Church leaders or sustained by the Church membership as official doctrine,

The scriptures I referenced above, from the NT and D&C, are official doctrine.

and because the Church stated that it is not an official doctrine in the interview with FOXNews that I showed you—

That interview, on second inspection, appears to be asking whether physical members of the Church will, as resurrected beings, be a kind of occupying ruling class on future planets. It doesn't ask whether humans will become gods like unto Christ, and then create, oversee, control, and "rule" future planets, but whether or not the church belives in "the existence of another physical planet, or planets, where Mormons will "rule"after their death and ascention."

In that form, this question actually deviates significantly from what a number of GAs have taught concerning the ultimate functions, priveleges, and powers of members of the Church who manage to become fully exalted. I would have to answer this question, as phrased, with a "no" as well, as it implies that church members will die, be ressurected, and somehow colonize and rule over future planets. That's not the doctrine of diefication and its attendent powers and purpose as taught by generations of prophets and apostles, to the extent they have taught regarding it.

and especially because it just doesn't jibe with what I have been taught about my Savior.

You've lost me there, but I"m willing to listen.

I'm not rejecting the doctrine of deification, or that angels will be subject to us, or that we will be given all power, but I interpret that to mean that we will be given all power to do God's will, not that we will become omnipotent deities or be given all the power that God has.

And all I'm saying that this portion of your interpretation is clearly incompatible with the historic teachings of the Lord's anointed servants in this dispensation, as well as the scriptures themselves, which clearly and unambiguously tell us that we will become like God to the point of fullness. Fullness is the word that leaps out at one in every scripture, and every General Authority teaching on the subject of diefication. Fulness, perfection, all power (omnipotence), all knowledge (omniscience), all things (all matter, all energy, all possible creations, worlds, enjoyments, feelings, sensations, emotions, perceptions etc.).

The fact that you and I disagree about what the afterlife will be like, or what our promised unity with Christ entails, does not give you the right to make unfounded and rather offensive accusations of me beginning to preaching another gospel.

Its a fundamental aspect of the gospel as I've been taught and been exposed to all of my life in the Church. Your particular take here is, at the very least, novel.

Yes, we are commanded to live every word that God says. But not every word that a prophet, a fallible human being, says is the "word of God." The Church has made this clear:

Yes, I know, and I've mentioned this myself several times. The problem is the wiggle room it creates (which it must, by its very nature, it would appear).

Maybe. But it does imply an infinite regression of gods, which has some logical problems and is something that, quite simply, I also don't believe in.

I see no logical problems with an infinite regression of gods save in the logical problem of infinite regression per se, that is, the idea of there never having been a beginning to existence qua existence at all. But this too, being a core doctrine of the restored gospel, would be a matter of faith one could come to a direct and pure knowledge of through the witness of the Spirit.

Actually, it would appear that any idea that all of reality actually did have an absolute, transcendent beginning would entail severe logical problems as bad, and perhaps even thornier, than the concept of past infinity.

Indeed, to wax philosophcial for a moment, I would think that the infinite regress of something in an ontological and/phenomenological sense is an inescapable logical necessity, as there is simply no way to conceive of or talk sensibly about an absolute, transcendent point of origin to all conceivable existence. All we can do is talk about relative beginings and endings, or points of origin and leading edges of ever expanding time or existence moving forward in time. At every beginning, we must always ask what came, or what happened before that point, or before that initial condition. The answer must always be that something must have created the initial conditions of what came since that initial point of which we are perceptually aware.

Gods, (and mortals, angels, devils etc.) might as well be involved in an infinite regress, as something must be understood to regress infinitely into the "past." Some kind of existence, reality, and phenomenal environment must have always existed. We can't concieve of any other option, at least not logically (unless we just want to fully immerse ourselves in the postmodern mental set and claim anything we want to claim anyway and thumb our noses at serious philosophical reflection).

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

All worlds, as the Book of Moses states, were and are created by the power of God's Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Creator: through and by Him all things come into being.

All worlds have not yet been created, and all the kingdoms we will inherit as gods will be our eternal and exalted stewardships,under the direction of Jesus Christ, to fill with creations, worlds, and universes to redeem, perfect, and exalt, upon the same eternal plan and pattern. I see no scriptural or GA delimitation regarding this particular power or ability. The concept of "exaltation" would seem to circumscribe this, and much more than this as well.

When I think of creating our own worlds, and "redeeming" our own worlds, that replaces my Savior, and I am not comfortable with such a thought.

In which case, baptism for the dead, and indeed, all the Temple work we do in which we act as "saviors on Mount Zion" for others are "replacing the Savior." By that logic, our role as parents to Heavenly Father's children upon the earth replaces him as the true parent of his own children. We are to inherit "all things" and become joint heirs with Jesus Christ. The doctrine here is "come, follow me." What does that mean, taken to its ultimate end? What manner of men and woman are we to be? What is the answer to that question?

Your argument here, if taken seriously, would also imply that Jesus Christ himself, in becoming like the Father and becoming a creator of worlds, was replacing and hence, displacing the Father somehow in majesty, glory, or importance.

Something is clearly not fully cooked in this argument.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Craig Paxton]

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

Thank you I believe you've successfully nailed Jell-o to a wall. Is This definition acceptable to all?

[Craig Paxton]

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

It is not my intent to come off as a bull in a chine a shop...yet it appears that that is exactly how I am perceived

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?

My sincerely apologies...I do seek diologue...I need to tone down my approuch...my intnet is not to offend anyone.

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?

We're going to have to disagree on this point...going from multiple to one...seems like a change in doctrine particularly if you've read what was preached at the time 1847-1890...polygamy was a core/essentual 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.

I used an extreme example to make my point...but I do not back off my premis that the church was under societal pressure to change is doctrinal position with regards to the black issue...Brazel only intensified that need for change

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?

1. no

2. I accept the definition provided by an earlier poster as church doctrine...see my earlier response

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?

Gordon Hinkley comes to mind in his interview with Larry King

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

Always glad to entertain

[Craig Paxton]

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?

See Loran...you and I do agree that this IS Mormon Doctrine...I don't know if that is a good thing for you to be in agreement with me however. Maybe you can show me a little sympathy now in my frustration in defining Mormon Doctrine...when even active believing members of the church can't agree on something as central as this doctrine.

m

[Craig Paxton]

I realize that I can sometimes come off as a bull in a china shop. Although it is not my intent to offend...I realize that I may at times offend the easily offended. It is not my intent to put off anyone.

I realize that I started a firestorm...I can be guilty at times of using highly charged reteric in order to drive a subject. Please understand that I do use extreme arguments not my intent is not to offend but to drive a post and create deep stimulating conversation.

In real life...I am very pragmatic...

This forum has been extremely patient with me...I come here seeking understanding...thanks for helping me to better understand your brand of Mormonism

[cinepro]

Thank you I believe you've successfully nailed Jell-o to a wall. Is This definition acceptable to all?

Sadly, the LDS Newsroom has some ambiguities that make it insufficient as a definition.

To see what I mean, try to go through their statement and actually describe how to determine whether or not something is "official doctrine".

Does something have to be in the Articles of Faith? Does something have to be in a declaration from the FP and Q12? What if it is in neither of those? Or it's in both, but not explicitly in the scriptures? And what role do "official Church publications" play in this whole thing? What if something is consistently taught in official Church publications and they say it's based on certain scriptures, but you disagree with the Prophet's and Apostle's understanding and interpretation of those scriptures? What if it's not in the Articles of Faith or the subject of an official pronouncement?

If people don't want to believe something, there's still plenty of wiggle room. For example, I believe the Book of Mormon is The Word of God, but I don't believe it is historical. So, I believe it is the Official Doctrine of the Church that it is The Word of God, but the idea that it is historical is just the personal opinion of different leaders that has been perpetuated through the years (and it isn't a "core" doctrine, so it's ok not to believe it).

Edited July 28, 2011 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

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....mormon-doctrine

Thank you I believe you've successfully nailed Jell-o to a wall. Is This definition acceptable to all?

As long as one remembers the paragraph above in that link (which is the one I link to in my siggy) which shows us that LDS doctrine is known by virtue of official publication, yes.

One cannot simply look at the scriptures and define doctrine for the LDS Church. The doctrine merely resides in the scriptures and it takes the 15 apostles and prophets to interpret it and agree on the interpretation.

An example would be John 3:5. What does "born of water" refer to and how do you know? For LDS, we know born of water represents water baptism and we know that it's the LDS interpretation/doctrine because it's officially published somewhere. For other churches, it means physical birth. Why do we not believe the same? Because of the officially published doctrine.

[volgadon]

Ned Kelly, am I correct in assuming that by "Mormon doctrine" you mean beliefs once widely held by church members? Going by your list, that is.

[ldsfaqs]

See Loran...you and I do agree that this IS Mormon Doctrine...I don't know if that is a good thing for you to be in agreement with me however. Maybe you can show me a little sympathy now in my frustration in defining Mormon Doctrine...when even active believing members of the church can't agree on something as central as this doctrine.

m

It is not unknown for members to believe "traditions" and "philosophy's" within Mormonism, and to then in error identify them as doctrine.

If you read the responses to his statement, you will see that it's a minor "perversion" as well as speculation of what the actual doctrine is.

Instead of relying on picking and choosing from members on nuanced subjects, why not just go to the Church, it's manuals and see what is actually generally considered our doctrine?

The Gospel Principles book pretty much sums up our Doctrines.

Edited July 29, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

Mormon Doctrine is what the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost, and Common Consent all four agree upon.

Scripture alone is not infallible, Prophets alone are not infallible, Spiritual Impressions alone are not infallible, and Common Consent alone isn't infallible.

Neither are combinations of two or potentially three perfectly reliable.

When all four work together and agree, then we can be assured what actually is the Doctrines of God and His Church on the earth.

Anti-mormons trying to make every statement of history, especially inaccurate representations of most statements, does not and never has made "doctrine" of the Church, nor for that matter ANY religion. Christian anti-mormons should know better. But of course they don't, using double standards and hypocrisy constantly in trying to destroy the Church.

Edited July 29, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[altersteve]

Mormon Doctrine is what the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost, and Common Consent all four agree upon.

Scripture alone is not infallible, Prophets alone are not infallible, Spiritual Impressions alone are not infallible, and Common Consent alone isn't infallible.

Neither are combinations of two or potentially three perfectly reliable.

When all four work together and agree, then we can be assured what actually is the Doctrines of God and His Church on the earth.

Anti-mormons trying to make every statement of history, especially inaccurate representations of most statements, does not and never has made "doctrine" of the Church, nor for that matter ANY religion. Christian anti-mormons should know better. But of course they don't, using double standards and hypocrisy constantly in trying to destroy the Church.

Exactly. And the prophets are not all in unity regarding the "humans can rule their own planets" notion, nor is it embraced by all Church members. There are even some faithful, believing members who don't believe it, just as there faithful, believing members who don't accept the idea that God has a god whom He worships, and just as there are some faithful, believing members who believe Jesus was or is married and others who believe otherwise. There is plenty of "wiggle room" in the Church to believe what makes sense to you, and what God has allowed you to believe for whatever reason. I believe, for example, that becoming an exalted being does not mean that you can rule your own world, but rather that we will continue to eternally progress to become like God, and that God will share with us His power, glory, and dominion, all the power, glory, and dominion that we can imagine, and that God will allow us to become one and joint-heirs with His Son. That is what it means to be exalted, not that we can become Heavenly Fathers and Heavenly Mothers of other worlds.

I see no reason, Loran Blood, why you seem to find it necessary to attempt at implying that I am not a true Latter-day Saint because I believe that I can one day become exactly like Heavenly Father, and then even take it as far as to accuse me of apostatizing. Please. I'm a believing member of this Church and have been for my whole life. I study the words of the prophets and on the scriptures, and I (try to) listen to what the Spirit tells me, and frankly, the thought of me ruling my own planet someday isn't something that the Spirit has taught me through personal revelation or through the teachings of the Church's leaders. When (or if, I should say) I make it to the celestial kingdom, I plan on spending my time there with my family, not becoming God's "equal" and creating "worlds without end," populating them with my "spirit children," and redeeming them with my Only Begotten Son. Such a teaching is not part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith didn't teach it, Thomas S. Monson to my knowledge has never taught it, and the scriptures certainly don't teach it at all. Now enough of this mightier-than-thou attitude you've got going on and let me worship according to the dictates of my own conscience without being accused of teaching "another gospel."

Edited July 29, 2011 by altersteve

[Craig Paxton]

Mormon Doctrine is what the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost, and Common Consent all four agree upon.

Scripture alone is not infallible, Prophets alone are not infallible, Spiritual Impressions alone are not infallible, and Common Consent alone isn't infallible.

Neither are combinations of two or potentially three perfectly reliable.

When all four work together and agree, then we can be assured what actually is the Doctrines of God and His Church on the earth.

Anti-mormons trying to make every statement of history, especially inaccurate representations of most statements, does not and never has made "doctrine" of the Church, nor for that matter ANY religion. Christian anti-mormons should know better. But of course they don't, using double standards and hypocrisy constantly in trying to destroy the Church.

Ummmm... the tune won't be quite as catchy...but hey I think it could work....

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don't go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet …. if he is in complete and utter agreement with the Scriptures, the other members of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, you get confirmation from the Holy Ghost and he gets a majority Common Consent vote at General Conference…THEN he knows the way.

[Jeff K.]

I know he hit reply button, but it seems an entire verse was written to accomodate it.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Jeff K.

[BCSpace]

Mormon Doctrine is what the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost, and Common Consent all four agree upon.

Common consent does not play a part in the determination of LDS doctrine. The Holy Ghost also does not play a part in the sense that you determine what LDS doctrine is; only whether or not you personally will accept LDS doctrine as doctrine.

The Holy Ghost will certainly play a part when the 15 prophets and apostles determine LDS doctrine; but neither you nor I nor any of the general membership is involved in that process.

[cdowis]

An example would be John 3:5. What does "born of water" refer to and how do you know? For LDS, we know born of water represents water baptism and we know that it's the LDS interpretation/doctrine because it's officially published somewhere. For other churches, it means physical birth. Why do we not believe the same? Because of the officially published doctrine.

Someone asked Hank Hannegraff, the "Bible Answer Man", about that verse. His response, "I know at least five different interpretations."

Christ is telling us what we MUST do to enter the Kingdom of God, and Hank knows at least five different ways to interpret it. Amazing.

We are so thankful that He speaks to the prophets today.

Edited July 29, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

Someone asked Hank Hannegraff, the "Bible Answer Man", about that verse. His response, "I know at least five different interpretations."

So, he has no clue what it really means, BUT he "knows" that Mormons have it WRONG!

Right?