Mormonisms Local God

[mfbukowski]

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.

There are many other sources for our belief in the Nature of God- most usually the First Vision is cited showing that God has a body of flesh and bone, but that does not include anything about how he received that body. And even Catholics I think agree that Christ also has a body of flesh as well, so we are really not that far apart on that as it may at first appear. But yes, I think the Fatima analogy is not a bad one.

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?

That is in fact what I believe but to be honest that is a subject for much debate.

This is in fact what the church officially says about it- and frankly, all we all agree on is that the statement is ambiguous.

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

Is that a blessing or a curse?

Let's just say that I find it to be a great blessing once I am finished being grumpy about each assignment for a while. Serving the Lord is a great blessing and after you have done it, you know it. I need to get better at seeing it that way when that blessing is first bestowed

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Nearly every new convert is a Trinitarian. If the church did a crackdown on Trinitarian Latter-day Saints, a lot of people would be in trouble. Moreover, the church does not seem to be in any big hurry to correct anyone's "false" notion that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons of the same essence.

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!

If you think that we understand LDS theology any more than Catholics understand the Trinity, then I think you are mistaken. Every time the issue of the nature of God comes up, our leaders say "we don't really understand it." Ask Gordon B. Hinckley.

[MiserereNobis]

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!

But what exactly is your theology? I've been told on this thread that the very distinctive theological teachings of the LDS church are non-doctrinal, which makes it hard to say that they are part of Mormon theology.

God is beyond our comprehension -- that is why it is a mystery. There is no concept or idea with which we can tie Him down. Yes, He is smart enough to explain it to us dummies, but He is also smart enough to tell us that His explanations can only go so far because He is so far beyond us because we are dummies. Think of quantum physics. The model of the atom is just that -- a model -- that helps us understand/visualize things that are really only understandable mathematically. God knows us Himself well enough and us well enough to give us the best model to understand Him -- this is the model of the Trinity. But He is a mystery to our minds, because our minds work with concepts, ideas, language, etc, and God cannot be bounded such things. That is why statements made about God are often paradoxical, because in the attempt to resolve the paradox we often catch a glimpse of something beyond concepts.

You are right; Mormons are very practical people, which shows up in a disdain for the mysterious and in a lack of mystics, those who have a non-conceptual experience of God and then try to explain it to us using the best concepts available.

A God without mystery is not a very big god indeed.

[mfbukowski]

I mean if Christ still has his body, and it does not limit his Godliness in any way, why would his Father having a body in some way limit HIS Godliness?

[TAO]

If you think that we understand LDS theology any more than Catholics understand the Trinity, then I think you are mistaken. Every time the issue of the nature of God comes up, our leaders say "we don't really understand it." Ask Gordon B. Hinckley.

Cobalt, he said that to questions about God progressing. Not to questions about whether God has a physical body, or whether Jesus has a physical body, or whether the Holy Ghost does not have a body.

And I can assure you, these sorta things oftentimes get taught in Sunday School. I think you'd find the number of LDS who have a misinterpretation quite low =p.

[mfbukowski]

Nearly every new convert is a Trinitarian. If the church did a crackdown on Trinitarian Latter-day Saints, a lot of people would be in trouble. Moreover, the church does not seem to be in any big hurry to correct anyone's "false" notion that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons of the same essence.

Honestly? Probably 40% of our Ward in the Los Angeles area are Hispanic converts who couldn't make sense out of the Trinity or other Catholic doctrines. No kidding! But of course we don't worry about that- the nature of the Godhead is not on the Baptismal Interview so of course we probably have many with different understandings of it. But to be honest- I have not found a Catholic- even here- who can explain it coherently. If Catholics themselves don't understand it, can they really be said to "believe" it? In my opinion - no.

If you think that we understand LDS theology any more than Catholics understand the Trinity, then I think you are mistaken. Every time the issue of the nature of God comes up, our leaders say "we don't really understand it." Ask Gordon B. Hinckley.

Disagree. If you look at that inteview you will see that he was exactly right what he said was that we don't talk much about the first half of the Snow couplet- that God was once a man like us. When is the last time you had a Sunday School class on God's ancestry?? Not only do we not understand it nor talk about it- in fact NO ONE ever talks about it in church. Maybe in Utah, but in the Real Church I have never in my life had a lesson on that.

[mfbukowski]

And I can assure you, these sorta things oftentimes get taught in Sunday School. I think you'd find the number of LDS who have a misinterpretation quite low =p.

But have you EVER had a lesson on how God obtained his body? It might be mentioned in passing that he must have been "like us" in some way, but I have NEVER had a lesson on this subject. It is simply not discussed.

[mfbukowski]

Honestly? Probably 40% of our Ward in the Los Angeles area are Hispanic converts who couldn't make sense out of the Trinity or other Catholic doctrines. No kidding!

The biggest issues I think I have seen for why people leave Catholicism is the Trinity, the Real Presence, and praying to saints to intercede instead of praying directly to God. Those are the biggest questions I hear. "Why do we need some Saint to pray to God? What do I need that for?" as well as "How could Jesus' body possibly be in that little piece of bread?" and just the general sense that the trinity makes "no sense". Oh and repeated prayers like the Rosary instead of directly talking to God as your Father instead of just repeating already written verses.

So Catholics, if you want to know why people are leaving- and we all know the secular issues why people leave as well and they do not need to be mentioned- those are the things you need to teach more clearly.

[TAO]

But what exactly is your theology?

Personal theology, you mean? Well, I suppose that differs between person to person. And you must realize, personal theology will never be as strong as doctrinal stuff, if you know what I mean. It's more of a 'free to believe if you want' sorta thing.

I've been told on this thread that the very distinctive theological teachings of the LDS church are non-doctrinal, which makes it hard to say that they are part of Mormon theology.

Well, there's a lot of distinctive stuff that is doctrinal. For instance, we view God the Father, and Christ, as having separate physical bodies. Not many other churches look at it that way. What isn't doctrinal (but people are free to believe if they want) is the stuff in the King Follet Discourse. That isn't to say most of us don't believe it - I even lean towards thinking it's correct. It just isn't a 'gospel essential'.

God is beyond our comprehension -- that is why it is a mystery.

Partially. God has to be partially within our comprehension too; that's what allows communication. He has to be able to relate to us, in concepts that we understand. So, while I'd agree he is partially beyond our comprehension, there is also much that is quite within our comprehension, and for good reason. What's important to remember of course, is that we don't understand him completely, if you know what I mean. He has many mysteries... but he's also revealed many of them to us.

There is no concept or idea with which we can tie Him down.

Sure there is. Just think of the word 'omnipotent'. We've just tied him down to such a description - all powerful. And we've also identified him as not being only partially powerful. We've connected him with an idea. And this isn't a bad thing. It helps our understanding of him grow, which is the ultimate goal anyways. We need to learn why he is the way he is. That's the point of life. To learn!

Yes, He is smart enough to explain it to us dummies, but He is also smart enough to tell us that His explanations can only go so far because He is so far beyond us because we are dummies.

Most definitely, and we are all dummies! Certainly!

Think of quantum physics. The model of the atom is just that -- a model -- that helps us understand/visualize things that are really only understandable mathematically.

What makes it so a model isn't considered understandable? Sure, it's just an analogy for the real thing, but so is mathematics. It's just numbers that represent the real thing. And truthfully, everything is an analogy. Our entire language, our thoughts; everything. Nothing touches the physical reality of things. But does that make it not understandable? Not at all. Our models and and analogies are our understanding indeed =).

God knows us Himself well enough and us well enough to give us the best model to understand Him -- this is the model of the Trinity.

Well, the difficulty is that different people interpret the Trinity differently, I guess. Technichally, you can fit our interpretation of the Godhead into the Trinity... it's just not a very typical interpretation.

But He is a mystery to our minds, because our minds work with concepts, ideas, language, etc, and God cannot be bounded such things.

Now that is where I will disagree with you. For me, there is no such thing as immaterial description, just as there is no such thing as immaterial matter. God isn't bound by language. Language just describes him. He is describable, else, we would not be capable of communicating with him.

That is why statements made about God are often paradoxical, because in the attempt to resolve the paradox we often catch a glimpse of something beyond concepts.

That is also something I'd disagree with. I don't think paradoxical statements are needed to make statements about God. Sometimes, we don't have enough understanding to get the correct interpretation, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a paradox, nah.

You are right; Mormons are very practical people, which shows up in a disdain for the mysterious and in a lack of mystics, those who have a non-conceptual experience of God and then try to explain it to us using the best concepts available.

On the contrary, actually. Yes we are practical. But we are also very connected to mysticism... very much so. A lot of LDS thought revolves around the Holy Spirit as a source of all truth. So when you want an answer... you ask him... and he communicates to you through your feelings. That's very much a mystical thing indeed. Even more mystical is the fact that you can't fully describe it in words; you can only understand it through experience. Instead, others must have their own experiences to truly understand the truth. In any case, I think it's more just we don't connect very well with somewhat vague ideas. We are a rather direct, people, I guess one could say.

A God without mystery is not a very big god indeed.

Mmm... I've never been so much concerned with God being big, to be honest. That's just sort of me, I guess. I'm not very much of a traditionalist in beliefs. I just want God to be right, if you know what I mean.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[TAO]

But have you EVER had a lesson on how God obtained his body? It might be mentioned in passing that he must have been "like us" in some way, but I have NEVER had a lesson on this subject. It is simply not discussed.

I don't think so... maybe. That's one of those non-'gospel essentials' topics, if you know what I mean. I was more referring to Heavenly Father and Christ having physical bodies with the statement.

On the other hand, I have seen some books where the prophets (even the more recent ones) clearly state that God was once a man, and that he got to our position. So, it may be closer to doctrine than some think it is, if you know what I mean.

In any case, I am fine with the idea itself. It sets up God as a father... both a role model and an example. And so I guess you could say it appeals to me somewhat, though I don't know personally myself about it's truth. I oughta ask sometime and get an experience, so I can know. But I need to be more worthy than I am now before I feel deserving of such a wonderful answer from him. I need to get better!

Edited September 10, 2012 by TAO

[MiserereNobis]

But to be honest- I have not found a Catholic- even here- who can explain it coherently. If Catholics themselves don't understand it, can they really be said to "believe" it? In my opinion - no.

Just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean that the person explaining it doesn't understand it. The fault could be with you, right?

Also, don't forget the great example of the faith of the father of the possessed boy.

Mark 9:23-24: And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the boy crying out, with tears said: I do believe, Lord: help my unbelief.

We can choose to believe things we don't fully understand and then, with tears, ask God to strengthen our belief and understanding. If I have to have perfect understanding in order to believe, my number of beliefs (religious or otherwise) would be pretty darn small. I might go so far as to say that you believe many things in the LDS faith that you do not completely understand, such as the nature of God.

I think it would be quite prideful for anyone to say that they perfectly understand the nature of God.

[mfbukowski]

But what exactly is your theology? I've been told on this thread that the very distinctive theological teachings of the LDS church are non-doctrinal, which makes it hard to say that they are part of Mormon theology.

God is beyond our comprehension -- that is why it is a mystery. There is no concept or idea with which we can tie Him down. Yes, He is smart enough to explain it to us dummies, but He is also smart enough to tell us that His explanations can only go so far because He is so far beyond us because we are dummies. Think of quantum physics. The model of the atom is just that -- a model -- that helps us understand/visualize things that are really only understandable mathematically. God knows us Himself well enough and us well enough to give us the best model to understand Him -- this is the model of the Trinity. But He is a mystery to our minds, because our minds work with concepts, ideas, language, etc, and God cannot be bounded such things. That is why statements made about God are often paradoxical, because in the attempt to resolve the paradox we often catch a glimpse of something beyond concepts.

You are right; Mormons are very practical people, which shows up in a disdain for the mysterious and in a lack of mystics, those who have a non-conceptual experience of God and then try to explain it to us using the best concepts available.

A God without mystery is not a very big god indeed.

Well I think what you are not getting is that indeed we are also mystics- every individual believes that God has actually told him that this is the "true church" and that is why we don't need doctrine much.

We can only use language to explain what language can explain- so yes there are mysteries but those things which are unspeakable- like how we know the church is true- is just that - unspeakable. There are no words to explain how we know that, yet 17 million people agree that in some sense God has told them that.

We can only speak about what we can speak about- and even those are just models anyway, including quantum physics etc. There is no reality beyond what we experience but we cannot describe any direct experience any more than you can explain the color red to a blind person.

There are no words to describe red to a blind person or the taste of salt to a person without taste or the difference between a trumpet and a violin to a deaf person. And that is what it is like to know that God has spoken to you.

I am sure Catholics experience it too- but our religion really is completely about how to cultivate hearing the spirit of personal revelation in one's life. Our church is like a recipe book of how to do that- it's not about the facts of the chemical reactions needed to bake a cake but what it does beautifully is give you the recipe you need to "bake" the most wonderful life possible to mankind, and believing that indeed if we are good enough, we can become like our Father is part of it.

I can think of no better belief to encourage people to be good people than to have them believe that if they are good enough, indeed they can become godly individuals. I think no other church can match that- the desire we have to become like our Father.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Is that one God or three Gods?

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

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?

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:

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.

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

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

That understanding is exactly what the Jews claimed of the Christians. So either you are Jew or your not monotheistic.

See 1Corinthians8:5-6

We are already Gods, at least according to Jesus in the Bible.

See John 17 KJV for LDS understanding of deification.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng

Personally I'd rather stay right here on earth. As per LDS doctrine.

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.

LDS Hymns are not doctrine. Though they may/may not contain it. Our hymnals generally are a collection of what is popular with LDS at the time of publication. Plus a few standby's

We believe in the Godhead as described in the Bible. Not some mystery confabulation of a God without body, parts, or passions.

Not everything. For instance the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine though it certainly contains it.

Yes I agree that we are more into orthopraxy than orthodoxy per say. But we do recognize the need for both. For faith without work is dead.

You are entitled to your beliefs about God, but I find no substantiation for that belief in the Bible. When Jesus was baptized three separate entities are established. Jesus claimed that his Father alone knew when Jesus would return. Clearly Jesus is not God the Father. When he appeared to the then 10 Apostles in the upper room he showed he had a physical body, and stated that spirits did not. So clearly God the Father has a physical body separate that of Jesus his son.

Obviously you do not understand the Articles of Faith as the LDS understand them. But as they are ours we get do decide what they mean.

God is somewhere. It is obviously not here. So Kolob is just as good a place as any. It is his influence that extends to all creation.

The LDS do not believe otherwise. He is the Father of our Spirits.

Our canon is the Standards works of the Church. We believe in an open canon.

[MiserereNobis]

The biggest issues I think I have seen for why people leave Catholicism is the Trinity, the Real Presence, and praying to saints to intercede instead of praying directly to God. Those are the biggest questions I hear. "Why do we need some Saint to pray to God? What do I need that for?" as well as "How could Jesus' body possibly be in that little piece of bread?" and just the general sense that the trinity makes "no sense". Oh and repeated prayers like the Rosary instead of directly talking to God as your Father instead of just repeating already written verses.

So Catholics, if you want to know why people are leaving- and we all know the secular issues why people leave as well and they do not need to be mentioned- those are the things you need to teach more clearly.

I agree that the state of catechism in the Catholic Church in the past 40 years is pretty woeful. Things seem to be changing, though, as the whole "spirit of Vatican II" crowd disappers. Each of those issues you list is easily understood with a proper catechism. And by the way, no one says you can't or shouldn't pray to God directly; the Saints are there to help us, just like we ask our friends to pray for us. I ask Saints for intercession AND I pray directly to God (sometimes to the Father, sometimes to the Son, and every now and then to the Holy Ghost). I also use set prayers, because they are beautiful and doctrinally correct, AND I pray using my own words.

You have to admit that many prayers in the LDS church are very repetitive... think about a prayer over a meal, yes? If a prayer is going to be repetitive, it might as well be beautiful poetry

Anyways, this is a bit off topic.

[zerinus]

I hope I can have a fun time with everyone. I do not know Zerinus.

Welcome to the board. I enjoy discussing the gospel, especially with Catholics.

Ok, though I hope you can see how to a non-Mormon the idea that the prophet of the restoration could make statements of such importance as to the nature of God and these statements be dismissed by later generations as not being necessary to believe.

See my previous post.

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?

A statement of the Prophet becomes binding when it is canonized. At other times when the prophets and Apostles of the Church speak, as in general conference for example, we consider them inspired as the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to us that they are inspired. That does not mean that often, or even occasionally they may not be inspired. It simply means that the onus is on us at all times to listen to them by the Spirit, as their sermons are preached by the Spirit, so that if a discrepancy does occur (which would be rare), we would be able to detect it, and not be misled by it. Mormonism is not a Church of zombies. We are all entitled to the gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to discern at all times if a teaching that comes to us (from any source) is genuinely inspired or not; and that included the teaching that comes from the leadership of the Church. It is like the parable of the ten virgins. Each was responsible to have oil in their own lamps. They could neither borrow nor lend. It is the same with us. Each of us is responsible to have sufficient light in ourselves to discern truth from error, and not depend on "borrowed light" from any source. That is how the Church functions.

Also, you must admit that statements from your prophets about the nature of God would seem to be important -- the nature of God is a basic doctrine for any religion. I'll repeat myself: I find it strange that statements from Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets about something so important as the nature of God can be dismissed as non-canonical and that Mormons can disagree with their leaders on something so fundamental.

I agree. I don't know if Joseph Smith was right or wrong in the KFD. He may very well have been partially right; or not got all the details of the doctrine right, which explains why it has not been canonized. Please note that the doctrine of the deification of man, and plurality of gods, is canonized. It is the idea that God Himself was once a man, and progressed to become God that is not canonized.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think so... maybe. That's one of t I oughta ask sometime and get an experience, so I can know. But I need to be more worthy than I am now before I feel deserving of such a wonderful answer from him. I need to get better!

That is exactly the attitude I was talking about. When we have a question, we don't go to the catechism or the Magesterium for an answer- we go directly to God himself.

THAT is our "doctrine". It is a miracle in itself that we agree on so much. Indeed our truth comes directly from our individual testimonies!

[mfbukowski]

You have to admit that many prayers in the LDS church are very repetitive... think about a prayer over a meal, yes? If a prayer is going to be repetitive, it might as well be beautiful poetry

No. Sorry. It is only repetitive because people are not truly expressing the feelings of their hearts- they are repeating words they heard someone else say.

We have no fixed prayers- except ordinances which use required language for specific purposes like blessing the sacrament (Eucharist).

If people do not speak in beautiful poetry they should not be praying in it either. It should come from the heart. I am sure that Shakespeare, were he LDS, would have come up with some prayers worth repeating, but we wouldn't repeat them anyway!

[TAO]

That is exactly the attitude I was talking about. When we have a question, we don't go to the catechism or the Magesterium for an answer- we go directly to God himself.

THAT is our "doctrine". It is a miracle in itself that we agree on so much. Indeed our truth comes directly from our individual testimonies!

Yep. Actually, it's the reason I believe in the Church. I wouldn't have much reason to believe in it without it. But you can ask God yourself... and get answers. It's most valuable to me, indeed. It is wonderful!

[MiserereNobis]

That understanding is exactly what the Jews claimed of the Christians. So either you are Jew or your not monotheistic.

Oh, come now, we don't need that tone here, do we? You know I'm a Catholic -- why be provocative?

We are already Gods, at least according to Jesus in the Bible.

That is, according to the LDS interpretation of Jesus in the Bible.

Personally I'd rather stay right here on earth. As per LDS doctrine.

Our personal preferences really don't matter. It is truth that matters.

LDS Hymns are not doctrine. Though they may/may not contain it. Our hymnals generally are a collection of what is popular with LDS at the time of publication. Plus a few standby's

I find this interesting. The hymn book is officially approved by the First Presidency, right? And I would guess the Quorum of the Twelve has something to say about it, too. I can't imagine them allowing hymns that would go against Mormon doctrine. Am I missing something here?

We believe in the Godhead as described in the Bible. Not some mystery confabulation of a God without body, parts, or passions.

Again, it's the LDS interpretation of the Godhead as described in the Bible. All Christians disagree with that interpretation.

Not everything. For instance the Bible Dictionary is not doctrine though it certainly contains it.

Right, and the Topical Guide, forgot about those.

Yes I agree that we are more into orthopraxy than orthodoxy per say. But we do recognize the need for both. For faith without work is dead.

Indeed. I think the focus on orthopraxis over orthodoxy is fascinating -- it helps explain much about LDS beliefs (the difficulty of pinning them down) to those who focus on orthodoxy. In Catholicism, we say lex orendi lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief. The way we pray (liturgy, praxis) influences and is influenced by the way we believe. So I guess you could say that we focus both on orthopraxis and orthodoxy.

You are entitled to your beliefs about God,

Thanks!

but I find no substantiation for that belief in the Bible. When Jesus was baptized three separate entities are established.

No Catholic disputes the account of Jesus' baptism. What you are showing here is a misunderstanding of the Holy Trinity. There are three Persons, but only one Being (one Essence). You have assumed that person is equivalent to being/essence, which is not correct.

Jesus claimed that his Father alone knew when Jesus would return. Clearly Jesus is not God the Father.

Clearly He is not. He is God the Son. Again, you are showing a misunderstanding of the Holy Trinity.

When he appeared to the then 10 Apostles in the upper room he showed he had a physical body, and stated that spirits did not. So clearly God the Father has a physical body separate that of Jesus his son.

I'm not sure how Jesus' ressurection proves that God the Father has a physical body. I think you might have left out something in your argument here.

Obviously you do not understand the Articles of Faith as the LDS understand them. But as they are ours we get do decide what they mean.

I never said I believed the Articles of Faith, just that I knew them. I also never tried to tell you what they meant. You are coming at me with standard responses to anti-Mormon stuff that I have not done.

God is somewhere. It is obviously not here. So Kolob is just as good a place as any. It is his influence that extends to all creation.

God is not somewhere. He is outside of space and time. I know that you disagree with this because if God has a physical body then He has to be somewhere with that body. My point was to show that when Mormons say they believe in God the Father, they mean something different when Catholics say they believe in God the Father. That's all.

Our canon is the Standards works of the Church. We believe in an open canon.

That didn't answer my question. My question was what is the authoritative method for determining doctrine in the LDS church and is that method the same as determining canon?

[zerinus]

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.

The doctrine of the deification of man and plurality of gods is canonized. See my previous post.

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?

That is right.

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.

Answered in my previous post. Just to add for clarification, if I disagreed with something that was said in general conference, nothing would happen to me. Even if I openly expressed my disagreement nothing would happen to me. But if I pro-actively tried to preach and promote my contrary ideas, and tried to persuade others to my view, then some kind of action might be take against me. I don't think that in the days of Peter, if someone disagreed with peter, he would have been disciplined or exed. The same applied to the LDS Church. Even if somebody disagreed with something written in scripture, I don't think that any action would be taken against him. I think that the same principle would probably apply to the Catholic Church. You tell me if I am wrong.

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!

See my previous posts.

[TAO]

Also, St. Pius, there is a lot of people posting... don't feel obliged to respond to everyone, k? =)

[Cobalt-70]

Honestly? Probably 40% of our Ward in the Los Angeles area are Hispanic converts who couldn't make sense out of the Trinity or other Catholic doctrines. No kidding! But of course we don't worry about that- the nature of the Godhead is not on the Baptismal Interview so of course we probably have many with different understandings of it. But to be honest- I have not found a Catholic- even here- who can explain it coherently. If Catholics themselves don't understand it, can they really be said to "believe" it? In my opinion - no.

If they have grown up as a practicing Catholic, then they have gone through the Catechism. So at least they have been taught about the Trinity. If they ever go to a Catholic school, or Sunday school, they will certainly learn about it there, too. When they read the Book of Mormon, they would not be disabused of Trinitarianism, unless they were paying very close attention to realize that it actually teaches modalism, which is slightly different.

Disagree. If you look at that inteview you will see that he was exactly right what he said was that we don't talk much about the first half of the Snow couplet- that God was once a man like us. When is the last time you had a Sunday School class on God's ancestry?? Not only do we not understand it nor talk about it- in fact NO ONE ever talks about it in church. Maybe in Utah, but in the Real Church I have never in my life had a lesson on that.

I'm talking about Hinckley's response to the San Francisco Chronicle, where he said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."

[zerinus]

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

Pretty much yes.

[Cobalt-70]

But have you EVER had a lesson on how God obtained his body? It might be mentioned in passing that he must have been "like us" in some way, but I have NEVER had a lesson on this subject. It is simply not discussed.

I have, several times. And I got it in Seminary, too. And then in a BYU religion course.

[MiserereNobis]

No. Sorry. It is only repetitive because people are not truly expressing the feelings of their hearts- they are repeating words they heard someone else say.

Well, what I meant to say is that in practeice it is repetitive. LDS prayers over meals all sound about the same, wouldn't you agree? How many times have you heard: "bless this food that it may strengthen and nourish our bodies"?

If people do not speak in beautiful poetry they should not be praying in it either. It should come from the heart.

I see where you are coming from, but I also firmly believe (from my own personal experience, too) that one can pray a beautiful prayer AND have it come from the heart, if they put their heart in it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I am sure that Shakespeare, were he LDS, would have come up with some prayers worth repeating, but we wouldn't repeat them anyway!

Yeah, it's kind of a bummer that he was Catholic but didn't write us any prayers...