The King Folette Discourse

[KevinG]

Yet somehow members of the Church manage to interpret the standard works to give different views of God.

Before I came to this forum, I never knew the diverse opinions that existed amongst LDS concerning the nature of God.

No, no, no... there is no dissention among the Mormons...

[KevinG]

The key question is not "are we to be like our Father in Heaven?" it is "How are we to be like our Father in Heaven?"

The former has been established fairly well. It is the latter where we have a glimpse but still see through a glass darkly.

[mfbukowski]

Of course I believe in exaltation. I simply don't think it entails becoming exactly like God and creating worlds of our own, but rather living with Him forever in families and obtaining a fullness of joy, with our Father sharing what He has with us and allowing us to assist Him in His future work. That's what I desire. I don't desire or expect to create worlds and be worshiped by my own spirit children whom I will save by the power of my "Only Begotten Son." To me that is equivalent to replacing my Father and my Savior. And I don't like that idea at all.

The point is, God's kingdom grows as our kingdoms grow. He will always be our God, and will always be as far above us as he is now.

Your father does not stop being your father because you now have children. His position as patriarch of the family remains with children, grand children, great grandchildren etc.

Project that analogy into the future postulating that there is no death, but only more learning and more progression for eternities to come, and you have what I think is a true conception of exaltation. It does not entail reducing God's kingdom- it only adds to it.

We will never be "equal" to his glory- but that does not prevent us from having our own "families" either, just as we do here on earth.

[mfbukowski]

Agreed. We will do the work our Father asks of us. We will be those that assist in the creation of his worlds without number. Our role is to glorify him forever because he is our God and Father.

That is in no way incompatible with my view, which I believe to be the church's view as well. Our glory only adds to His.

[mfbukowski]

I could dispute you, Altersteve, but then the topic would likely cross lines, so I'll just remain confused on how one sees it your way as an active temple going LDS, but I guess agreeing to strongly disagree is best here.

JMS

You nailed it. You can't go to the temple and misunderstand this at all. You can't be sealed and misunderstand this unless your ears are plugged during the ceremony.

You can't read John 17 without understanding it. We will sit with him in His throne and receive all that he has.

Edited November 3, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I also think the in my experience common misperception that the source of a claim of literal familyship is arrogance is due to a lack of understanding how LDS deal with the concept of being one with the Lord and the Father. It seems to me that most Christian theologies begin looking at the relationship of man and God by first 'defining' what/who God is and then who man is (the Creator and the created) and then examine all further interaction between man and God from that premise while LDS tend to skip all that, we look first at the promise of the Atonement, at the concept of God inviting man to become one with him and because we start there, there are no inherent limits placed on that relationship due to prior assumptions. Thus the revelation that we are literally of the family of God can flow from that concept also without limitations of prior assumptions.

This is only a superior position if the revelation that started us there is true, if it isn't even if it is a logically satisfying solution to the oneness with God, the promised inheritance of all that he has, then the concept is extremely problematic. LDS don't claim to rest their beliefs on what is intellectually satisfying in the end, but revelation....and I do believe we should be very cautious not to take our belief further than what has been revealed simply because it appears to be logical, we've seen what can happen with that in the history of the ban of the priesthood for those of African lineage.

The whole perspective of starting first with the "Nature of God" is strictly Greek, pagan philosophy- we on the other hand affirm revelation above philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

diglot:

While in your sickness, try and remember this:

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." -JS

I wouldn't want you to be considered a "so-called" Latter-Day Saint!

This is exactly what I meant in speaking of "orthopraxy" and putting individual revelation first-

[BCSpace]

Yet the concept that jskains mentioned, that God is an exalted man and was once mortal, is established and official doctrine.

Is it? Is it really?

In the apologetic/internet sense that anything and nothing can be doctrine (at the same time), then no, it isn't.

In the idea that the Church teaches things about God and stuff and that if those teachings come from Prophets and Apostles and are emphasized over the years in curriculum and official Church publications, then yes, really.

Correct except that what the Church teaches as official doctrine should also be the apologetic sense.

[BCSpace]

Yet the concept that jskains mentioned, that God is an exalted man and was once mortal, is established and official doctrine.

What does it mean that God is an exalted man?

That there was a time when God was not a God, that He progressed to Godhood via Theosis, the Deification of man.

[BCSpace]

The LDS view of God is the one taught in the standard works. That is where the doctrine of the Church officially resides. Nothing supersedes that as a repository of Church doctrine.

Technically true but potentially an inaccurate result. Neither you nor I is qualified to look at the scriptures and tell someone else what official LDS doctrine is without confirming it by looking at something the Church itself has published. Therefore, the published doctrine in the form of manuals etc. superceeds the scriptures as to the question of what is official LDS doctrine.

For example: John 3:5. Protestants say the water represents the physical birth. Mormons say it represents water baptism. Why would a Mormon say that? Because the LDS Church teaches it somewhere in a manual or other official publication. A Mormon completely on his own could potentially end up agreeing with the Protestant view or having a third view. I freely admit the possibility that the Holy Spirit would inspire said Mormon to come up with the correct view, but then we're back to confirming it via official LDS publication.

And this all jives with Ephesians 4:11-14. It is the prophets and apostles (Church organization) who give us correct doctrine and that comes through official publication as the Church itself notes in the link in my siggy about doctrine.

Now what one personally accepts as doctrine is an entirely different matter altogether as such may not necessarily be what the LDS Church considers to be doctrine. So if one wants to communicate the LDS Church's view, one should refer to it's official publications. If one wants to communicate one's own contrary view (as I do on occaision), I think it would behoove one to note that one's view diverges from the LDS Church's view.

For example, I don't accept the official published LDS doctrine that the Flood was global.

[BCSpace]

I would have absolutely no problem if it turns out that God sinned before He was exalted. In fact, I'd rather He be like us in that way: able to be forgiven for wrong choices made in the past. I don't love my parents because they've never made mistakes; I love them because they learn from those mistakes and try not to do them again. That's a much more powerful universe to me than one in which God is simply physically incapable of sinning. He wouldn't be good if He was incapable of acting differently; to be truly Good as a conscious, willful act, one has to have the potential to do evil and yet choose not to. God would cease to be God if He transgressed the Law agreed upon by common consent. That's why we honor Him: He chooses to be Good.

Sure. God is not some incomprehensible alien being. He is a homo sapiens same as we are and had to be tempted and tried just like we are.

Now because I accept evolution (which I argue is not in conflict with LDS doctrine in any way), I can also accept a "Star Trek" humanoid interpretation of the image of God (ala the TNG espisode "The Chase"). That is, all humanoids are in the image of God. With such a variety of worlds, I can't help but think that evolutionary processes might have come up with some similar but interestingly different final results. But yes, since it's all God-directed, evolution could also have come up with homo sapiens on every "image of God" inhabited world.

[Rob Bowman]

I think that whenever Mormons complain about evangelical critics supposedly misrepresenting LDS doctrine, I will simply point them to this thread. The range of competing views about fundamental issues (what constitutes official or authoritative LDS doctrine, what is the nature of God, whether it's even important to believe a certain doctrine of God, etc.) in this thread alone is breathtaking. If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

[Vance]

If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

And yet that doesn't stop the Evangelical anti-Mormon bigots from making declarations about what we "really" believe.

[zerinus]

Yet somehow members of the Church manage to interpret the standard works to give different views of God.

They don't actually. They used the King Follett discourse, or other sources, that are not canonized scripture.

Before I came to this forum, I never knew the diverse opinions that existed amongst LDS concerning the nature of God.

When you stray beyond what God has revealed, that is what happens. Then you are on your own. You are in the realm of speculation. If everybody stuck to the canon (as they should), that wouldn't happen.

[cinepro]

I think that whenever Mormons complain about evangelical critics supposedly misrepresenting LDS doctrine, I will simply point them to this thread. The range of competing views about fundamental issues (what constitutes official or authoritative LDS doctrine, what is the nature of God, whether it's even important to believe a certain doctrine of God, etc.) in this thread alone is breathtaking. If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

Don't overdo it Rob. Beliefs about "the nature of God" aren't fundamental to LDS doctrine.

Oh wait...

For us the truth about the nature of God and our relationship to Him is the key to everything else. Significantly, our belief in the nature of God is what distinguishes us from the formal creeds of most Christian denominations.

http://lds.org/liaho...-faith?lang=eng

Edited November 3, 2011 by cinepro

[Senator]

I think that whenever Mormons complain about evangelical critics supposedly misrepresenting LDS doctrine, I will simply point them to this thread. The range of competing views about fundamental issues (what constitutes official or authoritative LDS doctrine, what is the nature of God, whether it's even important to believe a certain doctrine of God, etc.) in this thread alone is breathtaking. If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

Heh,

I can't enitrely disagree with you here.

However, knowing that this may be the case, it aught to give the critic pause and reconsider what confidence he can have in his own understanding of what "the" lds position is. I mean, if there's diversity in LDS thought, shouldn't the critic's postion allow for such diversity, and not insist on it being one way or another?

[KevinG]

Who is in charge of orthodoxy in this place?

[mfbukowski]

I think that whenever Mormons complain about evangelical critics supposedly misrepresenting LDS doctrine, I will simply point them to this thread. The range of competing views about fundamental issues (what constitutes official or authoritative LDS doctrine, what is the nature of God, whether it's even important to believe a certain doctrine of God, etc.) in this thread alone is breathtaking. If Mormons knowledgeable about their faith, as all the Mormons participating here seems to be, can differ among themselves so radically on such basic questions as whether God has always been God or whether God in the past might have been a sinner, should you be surprised if non-Mormons don't always agree with you as an individual regarding what "the" LDS position really is?

Since you can only give circular arguments for why you believe in the Bible, I wouldn't bring it up if I were you.

At least we believe that God is not mute and teaches each of us as we need to be taught- that is the entire point.

[mfbukowski]

Who is in charge of orthodoxy in this place?

I'm with you felllers!

[Rob Bowman]

Senator,

You wrote:

Heh,

I can't enitrely disagree with you here.

However, knowing that this may be the case, it aught to give the critic pause and reconsider what confidence he can have in his own understanding of what "the" lds position is. I mean, if there's diversity in LDS thought, shouldn't the critic's postion allow for such diversity, and not insist on it being one way or another?

Responsible critics -- like me -- do point out the diversity of LDS opinions on such matters. However, we also point out that the LDS Church does officially teach certain things, whether some apologists acknowledge it or not.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[KevinG]

I'm with you felllers!

Indeed

3 Nephi 11: 28 ...And there shall be no ^adisputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I [Christ] say unto you, he that hath the spirit of ^acontention is not of me, but is of the ^bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things ^ashould be done away.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my ^adoctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Since you can only give circular arguments for why you believe in the Bible, I wouldn't bring it up if I were you.

At least we believe that God is not mute and teaches each of us as we need to be taught- that is the entire point.

If some of you were saying that God approves of eating pork and others were saying he did not, and if I were to point this out, you could always change the subject to my beliefs. But anyone paying attention would see that for what it is.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Log]

At least we believe that God is not mute and teaches each of us as we need to be taught- that is the entire point.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how someone can consistently claim to have the spirit of God, or the spirit of prophecy, and have authority from God to make disciples after their own teaching and interpretation of the Bible, and yet not know anything not contained in the Bible, nor giving an account of the acquisition of their authority. Doesn't seem consistent with the actions and words of the prophets contained in the Bible, but does seem quite consistent with the behavior of the scribes and pharisees in the New Testament.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

If some of you were saying that God approves of eating pork and others were saying he did not, and if I were to point this out, you could always change the subject to my beliefs. But anyone paying attention would see that for what it is.

And we all see your repeated avoidance of the bible issue for what it is.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

And we all see your repeated avoidance of the bible issue for what it is.

No, I have addressed the issue repeatedly. You just don't want to let go of this issue because it's just too convenient for you to change the subject to it whenever you are unhappy with something I say.