Mormonisms Local God

[thesometimesaint]

PopeStPiousX:

The LDS readily allow all including prophets to have their own opinions and idea's. To be put into canon it must be agreed to by the First Presidency, the Quorum of the twelve Apostles, the First Quorum of the Seventies, and put to the whole Church in General Conference for sustaining. The KFD has never had such.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[MiserereNobis]

PopeStPiousX:

The LDS readily allow all including prophets to have their own opinions and idea's.

If I understand you correctly, according to the LDS church Joseph Smith's (and subsequent prophets') teachings on the plurality of gods are private opinion and do not have to be believed by faithful members? Can a Mormon believe and say that Joseph Smith and others were wrong on the plurality of Gods and still be a member in good standing? I'm just trying to get a handle on how far one can dissent from the teachings of the prophets.

To be put into canon it must be agreed to by the First Presidency, the Quorum of the twelve Apostles, the First Quorum of the Seventies, and put to the whole Church in General Conference for sustaining. The KFD has never had such.

By canon do you mean the LDS Standard Works? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only modern-day prophets who have teachings/revelations/etc in the Standard Works are Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and whoever the prophet was who ended polygamy, yes?

I'll expand on my previous question. Can a Mormon be in good standing and not believe the teachings of modern-day prophets unless they are in the Standard Works? That would seem to deny the whole point of a modern-day prophet.

Also, how do you know if a prophet is speaking from private opinion or speaking in the name of God? In the KFD and the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith certainly didn't say he was speaking from private opinion. He spoke very boldly and called his teaching the truth: "I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached."

I guess I'm trying to understand when LDS members have to believe what their prophets teach and when they can dismiss it. Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

The Catholic rules on whether or not a statement of the Holy Father is fallible or infallible are very clear, including what level of assent the faithful are required to hold in regards to those statements. Are there equivalent rules for LDS? What makes a statement of the prophet canonical or binding on the faithful?

Our canon is open and it must be accepted by the faithful in General Conference for it to be included into the Standard Works. This has only happened a very few times since the restoration of the church. You can see for yourself in any copy of the Doctrine and Covenants. The last time it happened was in 1978, with Official Declaration II http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng and the time before that was in 1918 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138?lang=eng and before that, in 1890 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Note that none of those include the King Follette Discourse.

[MiserereNobis]

Our canon is open and it must be accepted by the faithful in General Conference for it to be included into the Standard Works. This has only happened a very few times since the restoration of the church. You can see for yourself in any copy of the Doctrine and Covenants. The last time it happened was in 1978, with Official Declaration II http://www.lds.org/s...t/od/2?lang=eng and the time before that was in 1918 http://www.lds.org/s...dc/138?lang=eng and before that, in 1890 http://www.lds.org/s...t/od/1?lang=eng

Note that none of those include the King Follette Discourse.

Are teachings in the Canon the only doctrines required for belief?

[Bart Burk]

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

Both the King Follett sermon and the Sermon in the Grove are extra-canonical. I don't hold the LDS to them. The Sermon in the Grove is especially suspect in my mind because it is a 20th century publication based on notes from a 19th century sermon. The interpretation of Revelations 1:6 conflicts with Joseph Smith's interpretation found in the inspired edition of the Bible. King Follett may have more legs, but it is really going out on a limb and the publication of the sermon occurred after Joseph Smith had died. He didn't have an opportunity to be involved in its publication.

[mfbukowski]

If I understand you correctly, according to the LDS church Joseph Smith's (and subsequent prophets') teachings on the plurality of gods are private opinion and do not have to be believed by faithful members? Can a Mormon believe and say that Joseph Smith and others were wrong on the plurality of Gods and still be a member in good standing? I'm just trying to get a handle on how far one can dissent from the teachings of the prophets.

Yes- to be a member in good standing one must only be able to pass a baptismal interview for worthiness and eventually a temple recommend interview. None of those questions are in either interview.

By canon do you mean the LDS Standard Works?

Yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only modern-day prophets who have teachings/revelations/etc in the Standard Works are Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and whoever the prophet was who ended polygamy, yes?

See the links above already provided.

I'll expand on my previous question. Can a Mormon be in good standing and not believe the teachings of modern-day prophets unless they are in the Standard Works? That would seem to deny the whole point of a modern-day prophet.

Believing the words of a modern day prophet is like listening to the advice of the Pope. Do you only listen to what is officially declared to be ex cathedra? I guess then that no one should listen to the Pope either then- after all, he is just a man, right?

Also, how do you know if a prophet is speaking from private opinion or speaking in the name of God? In the KFD and the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith certainly didn't say he was speaking from private opinion. He spoke very boldly and called his teaching the truth: "I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached."

Irrelevant. It is not in the canon. Period. One can take it or leave it as one sees fit.

I guess I'm trying to understand when LDS members have to believe what their prophets teach and when they can dismiss it. Thanks!

We never "have to" believe anything unless we get our own spiritual confirmation of the truth of that principle. We believe in personal revelation and indeed some debate as to whether or not we have "doctrine" at all as opposed to having "orthodox practices" sometimes called "orthopraxis".

And yet we cohere in our beliefs for the most part! Why? Because God reveals true principles consistently to each of us. You may find that hard to believe- I did when I was an atheist.

You should try it and find out for yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Are teachings in the Canon the only doctrines required for belief?

These are the actual pages missionaries use to give baptismal interviews- you can see for yourself what the questions are

http://www.lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___19_12_BaptismAndConfirmation__36617_eng_019.pdf

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally the book linked to above- Preach My Gospel, is the actual book of instructions for missionaries on what must be taught to anyone who wants to know more about the church before they qualify for baptism. It is available for anyone to read right here on the internet.

These are the Baptismal Interview questions:

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of

God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the

Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God?

What does this mean to you?

3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past

transgressions?

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have

you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are

you willing to obey them?

a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal

marriage between a man and a woman.

b. The law of tithing.

c. The Word of Wisdom.

d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to

fellow members.

6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the

name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make

this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

The reason for the questions about murder and abortion and homosexuality are not there as automatic disqualifiers incidentally. A yes answer to any of those simply means a further interview, usually by the Mission president to clarify the status of the interviewee.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

If I were Mormon, I'd go with the King Follet Discourse and tell everybody. But on the other hand, I am a Catholic who doesn't want to deemphasize our Lady. I just don't see watering down the product as a way of evangelization, either for Mormons or Catholics. If I believed in a Restoration, why would I think that it would be more plausible if it more closely resembles the Apostasy? In my opinion, the closer LDS get to us, the less appeal their message carries. I don't mind if they want to distance themselves from the doctrines that distinguish them. If many no longer believe God was once a man like us that's fine with me. Likewise, I think Protestants don't mind when we are silent about or distance ourselves from traditional doctrines of our Lady. Not that it makes the Catholic faith more appealing. It simply justifies the Reformation in their minds.

I'm glad to hear your perspective on this as a Catholic, because as a Mormon I totally agree. Sociologists tell us that the most successful religions are those in which there is some degree of tension between the religion and the surrounding culture. (There is a point of diminishing returns, however, if the religion is too subversive, as Mormonism was during the polygamy years.) So why are we Mormons so embarrassed about King Follet theology? I think it is one of the best things we have going for us. Who cares if it places us outside the Christian mainstream? The moment when we become accepted by evangelicals as "fully Christian" is perhaps the moment when you could say that Mormonism died. Look what happened to the Community of Christ, which is a fine denomination, but they have been hemorrhaging members as a result of moving into the Protestant mainstream.

[mfbukowski]

I'm glad to hear your perspective on this as a Catholic, because as a Mormon I totally agree. Sociologists tell us that the most successful religions are those in which there is some degree of tension between the religion and the surrounding culture. (There is a point of diminishing returns, however, if the religion is too subversive, as Mormonism was during the polygamy years.) So why are we Mormons so embarrassed about King Follet theology? I think it is one of the best things we have going for us. Who cares if it places us outside the Christian mainstream? The moment when we become accepted by evangelicals as "fully Christian" is perhaps the moment when you could say that Mormonism died. Look what happened to the Community of Christ, which is a fine denomination, but they have been hemorrhaging members as a result of moving into the Protestant mainstream.

I agree. Our defining doctrine is that God is the Man of Holiness and mankind are his children.

As president Hinckley correctly pointed out I think, we only hear about half of Lorenzo Snow's couplet, lately, unfortunately. But definitely that is the most important half.

If you really understand what we worship, it is the Divine Family. When I was Catholic I briefly attended a parish grammar school called Holy Family- little did I know what it even meant then!

[MiserereNobis]

Yes- to be a member in good standing one must only be able to pass a baptismal interview for worthiness and eventually a temple recommend interview. None of those questions are in either interview.

Thank you for the link and pasting below of the questions.

Believing the words of a modern day prophet is like listening to the advice of the Pope. Do you only listen to what is officially declared to be ex cathedra? I guess then that no one should listen to the Pope either then- after all, he is just a man, right?

I can understand the comparison to the Holy Father, but I'd like to highlight your use of the word "advice." Teachings about the basic nature of God seem to be much more than simple advice -- they appear to be foundational doctrines of any religion.

We never "have to" believe anything unless we get our own spiritual confirmation of the truth of that principle. We believe in personal revelation and indeed some debate as to whether or not we have "doctrine" at all as opposed to having "orthodox practices" sometimes called "orthopraxis".

This actually helps me understand the slipperiness of LDS doctrines. They are very hard to pin down. But if Mormonism focuses on orthopraxis, I can understand why. Tell me, do many Mormons agree with your idea that doctrines are not as important as practice?

And yet we cohere in our beliefs for the most part! Why? Because God reveals true principles consistently to each of us. You may find that hard to believe- I did when I was an atheist.

I think there are other explanations as to why Mormons cohere in their beliefs. For example, your Sunday block meetings are basically three hours of catechism.

You should try it and find out for yourself.

I have; that is why I am a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

+ PAX

[MiserereNobis]

I agree. Our defining doctrine is that God is the Man of Holiness and mankind are his children.

Wait, now I'm confused. You appeared above to be distancing yourself from the KFD and the teachings on the plurality of Gods, saying that one can take it or leave it as one sees fit, but here are agreeing with Cobalt-70 that the KFD needs to be emphasized. This seems to be a contradiction. I must be not understanding your position.

If you really understand what we worship, it is the Divine Family.

Would you mind explaining this? Do you mean Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?

When I was Catholic I briefly attended a parish grammar school called Holy Family- little did I know what it even meant then!

+JMJ+

[thesometimesaint]

If I understand you correctly, according to the LDS church Joseph Smith's (and subsequent prophets') teachings on the plurality of gods are private opinion and do not have to be believed by faithful members? Can a Mormon believe and say that Joseph Smith and others were wrong on the plurality of Gods and still be a member in good standing? I'm just trying to get a handle on how far one can dissent from the teachings of the prophets.

By canon do you mean the LDS Standard Works? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only modern-day prophets who have teachings/revelations/etc in the Standard Works are Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Spencer Kimball, and whoever the prophet was who ended polygamy, yes?

I'll expand on my previous question. Can a Mormon be in good standing and not believe the teachings of modern-day prophets unless they are in the Standard Works? That would seem to deny the whole point of a modern-day prophet.

Also, how do you know if a prophet is speaking from private opinion or speaking in the name of God? In the KFD and the Sermon in the Grove, Joseph Smith certainly didn't say he was speaking from private opinion. He spoke very boldly and called his teaching the truth: "I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached."

I guess I'm trying to understand when LDS members have to believe what their prophets teach and when they can dismiss it. Thanks!

You have an incorrect understanding of LDS Doctrine pertaining to a plurality of Gods. We believe in the Godhead as described in the Bible. You know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Those are the only Gods we have anything to do with. It is speculation to inject any other Gods, though there might be.

See Articles of Faith #1

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

We do not exclude members for having differing ideas, as long as those ideas 1. Consistent with Church doctrine 2. Not taught as Doctrine.

You have an incomplete view of the Standard Works of the Church. They include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants, and such proclamations as ratified by the Church.

We are free to believe and remain in good standing as long as that belief is consistent with doctrine, and is not taught as doctrine. IE; I could, but don't, believe the moon is made of green cheese. There is nothing in LDS doctrine that precludes it, and as long as I don't claim it is Church doctrine that the moon is made of green cheese. I can believe it to my hearts content.

Personally I don't see the point in being a member of any organization that I didn't believe in. Here succinctly is what the LDS believe and is doctrine.

The Articles of Faith

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
   
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
   
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
   
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
   
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
   
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
   
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
   
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
   
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
   
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
    
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
    
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
    
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
    

Joseph Smith

How do I personally know? By personal revelation from God. How else does anyone know for themselves?

Again the Church has never accepted the KFD as doctrine. I personally believe it contains many truths, and somethings I do not accept as doctrine.

From the beginnings of the Church no one man has the ability to establish doctrine for the Church. We have a well established method for determining what is doctrine. The KFD has never gone through that method. So by definition it is not doctrine whatever its other merits.

That Jesus is the Christ, the one and only begotten Son of God in the flesh, that he was born of a virgin, that he lived a life of doing good, that he died, and was Resurrected on the third day. That he established his Church when he was upon this earth, and has Restored it in these the latter days. All other things are appendages to that belief.

Edited September 10, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Cobalt-70]

Both the King Follett sermon and the Sermon in the Grove are extra-canonical. I don't hold the LDS to them. The Sermon in the Grove is especially suspect in my mind because it is a 20th century publication based on notes from a 19th century sermon. The interpretation of Revelations 1:6 conflicts with Joseph Smith's interpretation found in the inspired edition of the Bible. King Follett may have more legs, but it is really going out on a limb and the publication of the sermon occurred after Joseph Smith had died. He didn't have an opportunity to be involved in its publication.

It doesn't matter when it was published by B.H. Roberts. What matters is that it was recorded by Thomas Bullock (one of Joseph Smith's clerks and historians) at the time it was given. Bullock used a kind of shorthand. He also recorded the King Follett sermon, and a comparison of his record with that of the three other people who recorded the KFS shows that Bullock was quite accurate.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Bart Burk]

It doesn't matter when it was widely published. What matters is that it was recorded by Thomas Bullock (one of Joseph Smith's clerks and historians) at the time it was given. Bullock used a kind of shorthand. He also recorded the King Follett sermon, and a comparison of his record with that of the three other people who recorded the KFS shows that Bullock was quite accurate.

So would you hold that all LDS must believe in these non-canonical discourses to be good LDS?

[MiserereNobis]

You have an incorrect understanding of LDS Doctrine pertaining to a plurality of Gods. We believe in the Godhead as described in the Bible. You know Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Those are the only Gods we have anything to do with.

I think I understand the doctrine of the plurality of Gods -- there is more than one God. You admit so yourself right here, when you say "the only Gods" (plural). If Eloheim is a god, and Jehovah is a god, then there is more than one god.

It is speculation to inject any other Gods, though there might be.

It seems to be the logical conclusion of the doctrine of exaltation. If exalted humans become gods and keep the eternal cycle of creation, redemption, and exaltation going, then there must be other gods. The only way for there not to be other gods would be if Eloheim was the first, but once humans here are exalted then there will be other gods in the future. This seems to be the point of the first verse of "If You Could Hie to Kolob," yes?

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,

Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

I assume that as an official published hymn of the LDS church, it has been doctrinally approved by the proper authorities.

See Articles of Faith #1

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Is that one God or three Gods?

You have an incomplete view of the Standard Works of the Church. They include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants, and such proclamations as ratified by the Church.

This is exactly what I meant by Standard Works of the Church. Everything that is in the quad, right?

Personally I don't see the point in being a member of any organization that I didn't believe in.

I totally agree with you, but mfbukowski made an interesting point that perhaps the LDS church is more into orthopraxis than orthodoxy. Would you agree with him?

Here succinctly is what the LDS believe and is doctrine.

The Articles of Faith

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I am very familiar with the Articles of Faith. Of course, the issue is the meaning behind the words. I'll just use #1 as an example:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

If you asked a Catholic if he agrees with this article, the answer would be an unequivocal yes. However, if you asked a Catholic if he believed that God the Father had a physical body and was located in time and space (Kolob) and was a separate being from Jesus Christ, whom he created, then answer would be an unequivocal no. The meanings behind the words matter. That's what we're trying to establish here.

How do I personally know? By personal revelation from God. How else does anyone know for themselves?

Yes, God ever leads us to the truth and He has many ways to do so, including the creation of our reason and intellect.

From the beginnings of the Church no one man has the ability to establish doctrine for the Church. We have a well established method for determining what is doctrine.

By this method do you mean the method for something being declared canonical and inserted into the Standard Works?

[Cobalt-70]

So would you hold that all LDS must believe in these non-canonical discourses to be good LDS?

No, I wouldn't. I think you could be a good Latter-day Saint if you agree on theology with Joseph Smith circa 1829, Joseph Smith circa 1835, Joseph Smith circa 1844, Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine, the 1915 First Presidency theology, or even strict Trinitarianism. I happen to be partial to Joseph Smith circa 1844, because it is the pinnacle of Smith's theological liberalism, and I think it represents many years of inspired contemplation on the subject of theology.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

There are at least three version of the KFD none of which completely agree. Plus add in as Bart just said: "So would you hold that all LDS must believe in these non-canonical discourses to be good LDS"?

[mfbukowski]

Wait, now I'm confused. You appeared above to be distancing yourself from the KFD and the teachings on the plurality of Gods, saying that one can take it or leave it as one sees fit, but here are agreeing with Cobalt-70 that the KFD needs to be emphasized. This seems to be a contradiction. I must be not understanding your position.

It is quite simple. The KFD is not doctrinal but I find it to be among our most distinctive teachings which is crucial to my understanding of the church. Though it is not canonized doctrine, it is widely believed. Like I said, we are encouraged to seek our own answers to questions. Incidentally I am definitely a member in good standing, judging by the assignments my Stake President is constantly giving me.

I am a social trinitarian which means that the Godhead is like a family- they are three distinct persons but unified in their love and purpose the way an earthly father and mother and children are unified as "one" with a common purpose- "raising the kids" or as we would say formally, "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".

Catholic theology makes no sense to me whatsoever though I am quite familiar with it. 3DOP and I have gone around and around on this- I love that guy, but boy is he wrong! We keep trying to convert each other but neither of us have done it yet!

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70:

There are at least three version of the KFD none of which completely agree. Plus add in as Bart just said: "So would you hold that all LDS must believe in these non-canonical discourses to be good LDS"?

There are four people who recorded the KFD in detail. None of them cover 100% of the sermon, but where their coverage overlaps, they agree remarkably well. See this analysis.

[Anakin7]

A non LDS Christian view of Biblical Trinity vrs Catholic trinity

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[mfbukowski]

No, I wouldn't. I think you could be a good Latter-day Saint if you agree on theology with Joseph Smith circa 1829, Joseph Smith circa 1835, Joseph Smith circa 1842, Brigham Young's Adam God doctrine, the 1915 First Presidency theology, or even strict Trinitarianism.

Hmmm - not sure about "strict Trinitarianism" - you wouldn't get kicked out for believing it, but if you preached it you might definitely get a discussion with the bishop.

But that's ok- I don't think anyone can make heads or tails out of the substance, essence, nature, and being stuff anyway! We are pretty practical people!

But even Catholics will tell you it is ultimately a "mystery" which means they don't understand it either.

We like to actually understand our theology, weird people that we are. And we think our God is smart enough to explain it to us dummies in a way we can understand, no "mysteries" needed!

[mfbukowski]

I think I understand the doctrine of the plurality of Gods -- there is more than one God. You admit so yourself right here, when you say "the only Gods" (plural). If Eloheim is a god, and Jehovah is a god, then there is more than one god.

It seems to be the logical conclusion of the doctrine of exaltation. If exalted humans become gods and keep the eternal cycle of creation, redemption, and exaltation going, then there must be other gods. The only way for there not to be other gods would be if Eloheim was the first, but once humans here are exalted then there will be other gods in the future. This seems to be the point of the first verse of "If You Could Hie to Kolob," yes?

I assume that as an official published hymn of the LDS church, it has been doctrinally approved by the proper authorities.

Suppose the college of cardinals were all given the title of "pope" with a small p while the head of the church was called the "Pope" with a capital P- and nothing else was changed about church government except their titles.

Would there still be one Pope or many popes?

Can the college of cardinals issue ex cathedra pronouncements which are infallible or would there still be only one "Pope" you would see as the head of the church?

[MiserereNobis]

It is quite simple. The KFD is not doctrinal but I find it to be among our most distinctive teachings which is crucial to my understanding of the church. Though it is not canonized doctrine, it is widely believed.

I suppose a Catholic equivalent would be something like the apparition of Our Lady at Fatima in Portugal. One does not have to believe that She appeared there to be Catholic, though almost all Catholics do. But it still seems odd to me that something as foundational and important as the nature of God would be non-doctrinal and optional for belief.

So, just to be sure I understand clearly, you are saying that the only doctrines of the LDS church are those found in the standard works?

Incidentally I am definitely a member in good standing, judging by the assignments my Stake President is constantly giving me.

Is that a blessing or a curse?

[zerinus]

Does this mean that you do not accept the King Follett sermon as the truth? Was Joseph Smith preaching the truth in that sermon or not? Or in the Sermon in the Grove?

Did Joseph Smith teach falsehood?

And if he did, why did all of the LDS prophets after him, until fairly recently, openly reiterate the teaching that God was once man and has his own God?

I find it interesting that you dismiss Joseph Smith's teaching on something as basic as the nature of God is being non-canonical, when Joseph Smith himself said that the first principle of the Gospel was the true understanding of the nature of God.

+ PAX

I think that your confusion is understandable, but stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of prophecy. Comparing Joseph Smith with biblical prophets presents a problem, because we have a lot more information about the life and doings of Joseph Smith than we have about biblical prophets. Of the biblical prophets, the only thing that we have of then is their canonized scriptures. We don't have everything that they ever said or did in their lives. Take Isaiah for example, the longest prophetic book in the Old Testament. It is about 80 pages long. Is that all that Isaiah said in all his life? Obviously not. But we have no record of them. Obviously people did not think that they were sufficiently inspired that they should be canonized. The same in the New Testament. Take the epistles of Peter for example. They are a very small proportion of everything that he must have said in his life. We do know, however, that the Apostles had disagreements among themselves. Peter and Paul for example disagreed. Paul and Barnabas disagreed. Whatever their disagreements were, they couldn't have both been right. One of them at least would have been wrong. Even in the Old Testament we have the examples of Jonah, Balaam, David and Solomon (both of whom were prophets), even Moses and Noah who made a few mistakes (which were recorded for us to know about). Comparing the King Follette discourse with the Biblical canon is not comparing like with like. If you want to compare the legacy of Joseph Smith as a prophet with biblical prophets and Apostles, the right way is to compare canonized scripture with canonized scripture---i.e. the Bible with Book of Mormon, doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. That would be the right kind of comparison, because then you are comparing like with like. When you make that kind of comparison, then you will find that Joseph Smith stands head and shoulders above the rest. His scriptural output and performance outstrips every other prophet or Apostle of the Bible in both volume and diversity of output. That is the right way to compare them.