What Is Considered "Official" Lds Doctrine?

[altersteve]

So you accept it despite the problems.

What is it exactly that I "accept," since you seem to know my own mind better than I do?

You drop the ball as soon as the real questions get interesting. That strikes me as intellectual laziness, and it is one of the problems I had when I went through the first stages of my apostasy. I just could do it anymore. I couldn't keep throwing this stuff on the back-burner nor could I just take comfort in this notion that "we're never going to know everything anyway, so there is no reason to try to make logical sense" of your own Church's beliefs.

So I'm intellectually lazy for not really caring about the details of God's mortal existence? Please, tell me how that works. And I would be offended by your assumption that I don't try to use the reason and logic that God has blessed me (and everyone else) with, but I'm more amused than anything. Once again, you demonstrate that you think you know me better than I do. You've done this at least a few times before.

Tell me, do you believe, as Joseph Smith did, that God the Father has a Father?

No, but I'm open to the fact that I might be wrong.

If not, then why do you disagree with the Prophet?

Who says I have to believe every single statement that every single prophet has ever made?

If you agree, then who was the first God if there isn't an eternal regression of Gods? The more you actually begin to question the logic of Mormon doctrine, you begin to enter a wormhole of endless questions, none of which get answered and all of which are designed to keep oneself from making a logical induction of the evidence. When critics point out how some of this stuff just doesn't make any sense, you close the discussion and say it isn't important to your salvation.

I'm pretty amused by your attempt to catch me in a contradiction, to be honest. But it's not going to work.

Sigh. And you wonder why so many think Mormonism is a form of anti-intellectualism?

I don't wonder this at all. In fact, I actually think I have a good idea why people have this opinion.

Mormon doctrine!

Complex it is, but sophisticated it is not and this is just one example of many.

LOL

And it is times like this that make me roll my eyes because LDS leaders and apologists have aggressively attacked traditional Christian teachings for being too complex and incoherent; doctrines such as the Trinity. I tell ya, the Trinity doctrine is weird, but it is by far more sophisticated and logical than anything the LDS apologists have come up with to reconcile past LDS teachings with logical thinking. I don't understand how Mormons think not having a systematic theology to make sense of their beliefs, is somehow a plus for their faith. It is like they just say, we don't understand it, but who cares... the Church is true.

This statement is what makes me roll my eyes. It has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever.

Wade will say this is another case of someone failing his "test of faith" which is nothing more than a product of his confirmation bias. Well, it could more easily be said that Mormons who refuse to take their own beliefs to their logical end, are failing the test of rationality. But then, this would make sense given the Church's criticism of man's capacity for reason.

Okay.

And now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Edited April 17, 2012 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

Just a few years prior to these interviews, Hinckley taught in Conference:

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom." (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)

So apparently, Hinckley knew at least "something" about this whenever he was speaking to members. When speaking to a non-LDS audience with a non-LDS journalist, he doesn't know much at all.

Keep in mind that when Snow mentioned this to Joseph Smith, he was informed by the prophet that this was a true revelation from God. He didn't qualify it by excluding the part which says "God once was." And of course, there was never any question about "official" doctrine back in Joseph Smith's day. If he taught it as coming from God, then it was doctrine. Period. This was and is official doctrine in every sense of the term and it is based not only on King Follett but also Joseph Smith's sermon on the plurality of Gods, in which he misinterpreted Rev 1:6 )based on a flawed, ambiguous translation) to mean God the Father also has a Father, which essentially gave birth to the eternal regression of God's meme that has given Mormon philosophers fits.

The above quote doesn't really address the "God once was part." I don't think there's any dispute that official Mormon doctrine says that people can become gods and goddesses. That doctrine is not that big of a leap from theosis and Christian perfection. The issue is whether God was once a man. I don't think Hinkley, or any other church spokesperson since, has actually backed away from Hinckley's backing away. And I don't see such a backing away happening in the future, because the church is officially embarrassed about this doctrine.

I also don't disagree that the "God once was" part was once clearly official doctrine. But a top-down hierarchical church, like the LDS Church, has the prerogative to define its own official doctrine, regardless of what its members believe.

[altersteve]

the church is officially embarrassed about this doctrine.

CFR

[Cobalt-70]

What I said (or what I meant, at least) is that I don't believe in an "infinite regression of gods" or that we will one day create and become gods of our own worlds. I do believe God was once a man (more specifically, that He, like Christ, passed through mortality), but how, when, and where that took place is unclear to me, and really doesn't matter to me very much at all.

So, is there such a thing as "throwaway doctrine"? How is it that there are theological doctrines Mormons believe in that they claim are "not important"?

According to Joseph Smith, "If any man inquire, What kind of a being is God?--if he will cast his mind to know and search diligently his own heart--if the declaration of the Apostle be true, he will realize that unless he knows God he has not eternal life for there can be eternal life on no other principle." (King Follett.) Is anyone willing to come forward and suggest that Smith was wrong on that point?

Edited April 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[altersteve]

So, is there such a thing as "throwaway doctrine"? How is it that there are theological doctrines Mormons believe in that they claim are "not important"?

I never said the doctrine itself is "not important." What I said was that the detailed specifics of that doctrine don't matter to me personally. If they matter to someone else, great.

According to Joseph Smith, "If any man inquire, What kind of a being is God?--if he will cast his mind to know and search diligently his own heart--if the declaration of the Apostle be true, he will realize that unless he knows God he has not eternal life for there can be eternal life on no other principle." (King Follett.) Is anyone willing to come forward and suggest that Smith was wrong on that point?

I completely agree with Joseph here. If you don't know God, there is no eternal life. This is exactly what Jesus said in John 17:3.

[mfbukowski]

You're making a distinction without a difference since both doctrines derive from the same "couplet coined" which Hinckley said we know little about. "That's more of a couplet than anything else" he told the San Francisco Chronicle, and this suggests he believed it could hardly be used to establish doctrine. But that is precisely how he used the "couplet" a few years earlier at Conference. If he doesn't know anything about it in 1997, then why is he using it to establish a teaching in 1994?

Not really. Joseph Smith taught that "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God." He also went on to say that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" and "that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Any honest Mormon vaguely familiar with these key LDS teachings would have answered this clear question with a proud "yes" and explained that it is one of the unique truths restored via the one True Church. But Hinckley missed the missionary opportunity and instead tried to downplay a key Mormon doctrine because he knew how it would come across in the media. Mormons do not like sharing their unique beliefs unless they can accompany them with a litany of apologetic arguments, and it was clear Hinckley didn't have the time to do so in this instance (even if he had any to offer). So the best move was to spin and move on to the next question, which is clearly what he did.

Now if you pay attention to the questions, he was asked in neither Time nor the San Fransisco Chronicle, nothing about Lorenzo Snow's "couplet." He was asked very specifically whether or not Mormons believe God was once a man based on Mormon teaching. In the Chronicle, Hinckley responds by derailing immediately with Lorenzo Snow's revelation, downgrading it to a mere "couplet" so he can then claim we "don't know much" about it as if were just folklore without the stamp of approval from any of the Prophets. So because of Hinckley's maneuver, suddenly the original question gets lost and we're talking about a degree of understanding of Lorenzo Snow, which was clearly irrelevant. But pertaining to the question is the fact that the Church has taught incessantly for more than a century that God was once a man as we are today, and so Hinckley was being nothing less than intentionally evasive and provided misleading information. He wasn't asked if Mormons "know a lot about it" or if they "emphasize it" (and by the way, how does it make sense to say you don't know it is emphasized after you've already said you don't know it is taught?). He was asked if it was taught, and to that question Hinckley said he didn't know and then began to rant in different directions. How embarrassing.

No, the issue is what's official doctrine as the title of this thread suggests. If it is revelation from God, (which it was) then it is doctrine, period. What you're telling us is that Hinckley doesn't know this is LDS doctrine and he doesn't know what the Church teaches. That's hardly comforting news from the CEO of the Church.

Sigh.

There's not too much of a point to this but I will try once more. He only quoted one HALF of the "couplet" in 1994, indicating that he quite probably had a problem with the other half at least that early.

And then you go and contradict yourself saying that he used both halves of the couplet in 1994, but "didn't know it was doctrine" in 1997.

As I said, it is clear he was presenting that he took the "exaltation" half as "doctrine" but not the "God was once a man" half as doctrinal regardless of whether or not Joseph taught it.

But you are so blinded you refuse to see it. You can't even see the distinction and acknowledge it and come up with a better explanation.

[mfbukowski]

Take it easy on serial broad brush slams against LDS if you want to stay in the thread.

I hope you don't hurt his feelings or anything. He's a very sensitive guy.

Edited April 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

You're making a distinction without a difference ...

It is near impossible to see the reasonable and clear difference while wearing fundamentalist blinders. It is made even more difficult to see it when one also factors in the giant, nit-picking chip on your shoulder. There is no chance at all of see it when your mind has become dogmatized and hermetically sealed within the enormous vacuum of a remarkably over-inflated ego (one that arrogantly assumes he knows better than Pres. Hinckley what Pres. Hinckley thinks and meant).

So, what's new?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 17, 2012 by wenglund

[inquiringmind]

Sigh.

There's not too much of a point to this but I will try once more. He only quoted one HALF of the "couplet" in 1994, indicating that he quite probably had a problem with the other half at least that early.

And then you go and contradict yourself saying that he used both halves of the couplet in 1994, but "didn't know it was doctrine" in 1997.

As I said, it is clear he was presenting that he took the "exaltation" half as "doctrine" but not the "God was once a man" half as doctrinal regardless of whether or not Joseph taught it.

But you are so blinded you refuse to see it. You can't even see the distinction and acknowledge it and come up with a better explanation.

So if President Hinckley didn't take the "God was once a man" half of the couplet as doctrine, does that mean it might not be official doctrine?

Edited April 17, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Law22]

Of course I believe in exaltation. I just don't believe it has anything to do with "creating planets."

Can you please explain what exaltation means to you?

[mfbukowski]

So if President Hinckley didn't take the "God was once a man" half of the couplet as doctrine, does that mean it might not be official doctrine?

Maybe yes maybe no. It's not in the standard works- on the other hand Pres Hinckley's remark was not made "as a prophet"- his remarks are not even "published by the church".

In other words, deciding if it is or isn't doctrine, on the basis of a few remarks in Time magazine, is pretty vague at the very best. Should this be a serious controversy, which it is not, one would hope for a clarification.

That's not going to happen. It was an off-handed reply to a reporter and it's not at all clear what his intent is. There has been plenty of time for a reply or clarification if one was to be forthcoming. And of course Pres Hinckley is no longer with us, so any conclusion is speculation.

[JDave]

BC has been pretty quiet. Is he waiting for things to blow over? I still have a CFR or two for him to respond to.

"The Church does not knowingly publish unidentified segements of non doctrine."

"Everything published by the Church is official doctrine unless identified otherwise by the Church."

[Senator]

Pres Hinckley's remark was not made "as a prophet"

A question to all you great compilers out there:

Have any of you compiled a list references where this apologetic idea has officially been taught to the general body of the church? (Other than a newsroom release)

Ensigns, manuals, conference talks etc..?

[altersteve]

Can you please explain what exaltation means to you?

It means to become joint-heirs with Christ in all things, and to inherit all that our Father has. What that means exactly, I don't know, and the Church doesn't claim to know either.

[Brade]

BC has been pretty quiet. Is he waiting for things to blow over? I still have a CFR or two for him to respond to.

He posted about 10 hours ago. Hopefully he'll make his way over here soon.

[mfbukowski]

A question to all you great compilers out there:

Have any of you compiled a list references where this apologetic idea has officially been taught to the general body of the church? (Other than a newsroom release)

Ensigns, manuals, conference talks etc..?

Of course.

Elder Christofferson, this conference said:

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”⁵ President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng

It would be nice if critics actually studied the church a bit before asking such questions.

[mfbukowski]

He posted about 10 hours ago. Hopefully he'll make his way over here soon.

There is not much point in waiting to "catch him" and monitor his every move. Even I, in my greatness, have said things I have later retracted.

[Senator]

Of course.

Elder Christofferson, this conference said:

http://www.lds.org/g...christ?lang=eng

Well, there you go. That's what I get for missing conference this go around.

It would be nice if critics actually studied the church a bit before asking such questions.

Oh come on now. Was that really a critical question?

And if anything it was critical of the apologists not the church.

Can't coming here and probing people's brains be a part of "studying" the church?

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

"Can't coming here and probing people's brains be a part of "studying" the church?".

Now that's a scarry thought.

[Senator]

Senator:

"Can't coming here and probing people's brains be a part of "studying" the church?".

Now that's a scarry thought.

It is, now that you mention it!

[Cobalt-70]

Maybe yes maybe no. It's not in the standard works- on the other hand Pres Hinckley's remark was not made "as a prophet"- his remarks are not even "published by the church".

In other words, deciding if it is or isn't doctrine, on the basis of a few remarks in Time magazine, is pretty vague at the very best. Should this be a serious controversy, which it is not, one would hope for a clarification.

The church's official doctrine is whatever its spokespeople say it is, when they are speaking in an official, representative capacity. It doesn't matter whether the spokesperson is speaking "as a prophet," or whether the church itself is doing the publishing. What is "official" is a different issue than what is "prophetic."

[Law22]

It means to become joint-heirs with Christ in all things, and to inherit all that our Father has. What that means exactly, I don't know, and the Church doesn't claim to know either.

The LDS church very clearly knows what it means. In fact, exaltation (deification) is the ultimate goal of Mormonism, (and Catholicism btw).

LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie taught that those who attain exaltation "…inherit in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth..." (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257).

The Doctrine and Covenants also teaches that "then shall they be gods, because they have no end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power…" (D&C 132:16-26).

From LDS.org:

What Is Exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Blessings of Exaltation

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, "This is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, "All things are theirs" (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
   
2. They will become gods.
   
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
   
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
   
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).
   

Exaltation according to Mormonism means gaining a fullness of all God has to offer. It includes reaching the "highest level" of heaven (the celestial kingdom), attaining all knowledge available, and becoming a god over your own creation.

Now you know.

[mfbukowski]

The church's official doctrine is whatever its spokespeople say it is, when they are speaking in an official, representative capacity. It doesn't matter whether the spokesperson is speaking "as a prophet," or whether the church itself is doing the publishing. What is "official" is a different issue than what is "prophetic."

I see.

One might think they are occasionally both official and prophetic, but if you say they are not, then of course you must be right.

[Cobalt-70]

One might think they are occasionally both official and prophetic, but if you say they are not, then of course you must be right.

I'm not saying that something can't be both official and prophetic. In fact, pretty much everything that is prophetic is official. However, not everything that is official is, or has been, prophetic.

[altersteve]

The LDS church very clearly knows what it means. In fact, exaltation (deification) is the ultimate goal of Mormonism, (and Catholicism btw).

LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie taught that those who attain exaltation "…inherit in due course the fullness of the glory of the Father, meaning that they have all power in heaven and on earth..." (Mormon Doctrine pg. 257).

The Doctrine and Covenants also teaches that "then shall they be gods, because they have no end…then shall they be gods, because they have all power…" (D&C 132:16-26).

From LDS.org:

What Is Exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Blessings of Exaltation

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, "This is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, "All things are theirs" (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
   
2. They will become gods.
   
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.
   
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
   
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).
   

Exaltation according to Mormonism means gaining a fullness of all God has to offer. It includes reaching the "highest level" of heaven (the celestial kingdom), attaining all knowledge available, and becoming a god over your own creation.

Now you know.

I have been a member of the Church for 20 years, so I am very familiar with these teachings.