Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[Darren10]

The King Follett Discourse of April 7, 1844, perhaps the most significant sermon delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was preserved in manuscript form by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff. Though a version of this sermon was published only four months later in the Times and Seasons, the version in general use today is an “amalgamation” made in 1855 by Jonathan Grimshaw.

Since the Grimshaw amalgamation was made over eleven years after the discourse was given, there may be some concern about the questionable process of expanding or “fleshing out” the text, as well as the propriety of eliminating material from the original manuscript accounts. From a historical point of view, it is preferable to use primary sources and not reminiscences of over a decade later. This article presents a new amalgamation of the King Follett Discourse created by the following procedure. The account of Thomas Bullock was used as the basic running text. William Clayton’s version was then superimposed, adding a number of refinements such as extra clauses and clearer development of ideas.

Afterwards, the parts recorded by Willard Richards were compared with what had already been developed; generally the Richards account merely confirmed various parts, though it added a number of new elements also. Finally, the Wilford Woodruff account was considered, and its new material was added, with the understanding that his material may not be as likely to represent the words actually spoken by Joseph Smith, though the basic meaning would likely be preserved.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321

[Darren10]

It is quoted in official church materials and taught as doctrine. You're free of course to believe in a more mainstream, universal/Christian "uncreated" God. I would never dissuade you from following your heart on that. But the doctrine of the Church is still that God the Father was once a mortal man.

Nope, not "of the Church', it is not.

[ALarson]

Nope, not "of the Church', it is not.

There are many quotes from Brigham Young and others stating the same thing. It was printed in the Ensign in 2005:

"Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!

That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

- Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female, The Ensign,

Jan. 2005, pg. 48

[Darren10]

There are many quotes from Brigham Young and others stating the same thing. It was printed in the Ensign in 2005:

Wonderful. Being printed in the Ensign does not make it "doctrine of the Church".

Many religions teach that human beings are children of God, but often their conception of Him precludes any kind of bond resembling a parent-child relationship. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught of a much simpler and more sensible relationship: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit … was to make himself visible … , you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.”²

First off, that's credited to Joseph Smith, not the Church. Second, this is what Joseph Smith is reported to have spoken / taught. As I posted in my #57 above, the source for this is sketchy. Though I personally believe in it, I do not hold it as part of my faith or worship. Especially not as taught by the Church.

We are of God’s family. We are His sons and daughters, created in the image of heavenly parents. “No greater ideal has been revealed,” taught President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “than the supernal truth that we are the children of God, and we differ, by virtue of our creation, from all other living things. (See Moses 6:8–10, 22, 59.)

Definitely supported by scripture and the Proclamation tothe World (which most definitely *IS* a "doctrine of the Church").

Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has taught that our creation as male and female children of God “was done spiritually in your premortal existence when you lived in the presence of your Father in Heaven. Your gender existed before you came to earth.”⁴

Also supported by the Proclamation to the World.

A body patterned after the image of God was created for Adam, and he was introduced into the Garden. At first, Adam was alone. … But alone, he could not fulfill the purposes of his creation. [snip] Neither alone nor with other men could Adam progress.

All supported by scripture.

Marriage was instituted.”⁵

I think that's official LDS doctrine though i'm not sure. If it is it would not alter any teachings or perceptions of how we worship and what we place our faith in.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has addressed this issue: “[satan] seeks to undermine the principle of individual accountability, to persuade us to misuse our sacred powers of procreation, to discourage marriage and childbearing by worthy men and women, and to confuse what it means to be male or female. … Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of ‘nature and nurture.’ All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.”⁶

Definitely part of doctrines of the Church.

The entire article is supported by scripture, official church doctrine, and/or the church's united efforts in taking a position. All except for the King Follett Report.

[wayfarer]

this is divolving into a discussion of what constitutes official doctrine, with the rejection of individuals and views that don't fit a given person's view of that doctrine.

Since I started this discussion, for the sake of this thread, let's take some assumptions that a very large portion of LDS hold true:

1. God the Father has and exalted, physical body.

2. God the Father was once a human, mortal man.

Since this is a theological discussion, investigating the merits of the theological approach in Orson Pratt's Seer. Since Theology is not how we create "Doctrine", it seems to me that saying that "The Seer" is not doctrine is stating the obvious, and irrelevant.

Advise:

[Darren10]

wayfarer;

Doesn't Pratt offer reasons why we worship the Father?

[Darren10]

And what we worship?

[Bart Burk]

Pratt's essay makes it sound like I should be worshiping an idea rather than a person.

[semlogo]

Nope, not "of the Church', it is not.

If they thought it was false doctrine, they wouldn't be putting it in the manuals.

[semlogo]

Wonderful. Being printed in the Ensign does not make it "doctrine of the Church".

Of course it does. Manuals and magazines are a method for teaching, and the church uses them to teach this doctrine. That's what doctrine means - that which is taught.

[wayfarer]

Pratt's essay makes it sound like I should be worshiping an idea rather than a person.

That's what i thought initially, but on a careful reading, the idea is never worshipped, only the person who has the attributes. without the attributes, the person is unworthy of worship

[Darren10]

semlogo;

The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.⁴

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:

The Doctrine of Christ

Declarations that God had a God are singular monents. I find no reason to take them as binding to the Church.

Also, on the following link, read the section 3) '"Official' LDS Doctrine". I find it makes the issue pretty clear.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf

Not everything written in the Ensign is in clear conformity to what God has revealed, particularly with the Standard Works. God having a god, having a God, etc. do not line up with the Standard Works. The Standard Works are part of the LDS official faith and worship.

[Darren10]

That's what i thought initially, but on a careful reading, the idea is never worshipped, only the person who has the attributes. without the attributes, the person is unworthy of worship

That assesment I can totally agree with.

[semlogo]

semlogo;

The Doctrine of Christ

Declarations that God had a God are singular monents. I find no reason to take them as binding to the Church.

Also, on the following link, read the section 3) '"Official' LDS Doctrine". I find it makes the issue pretty clear.

http://www.fairlds.o...on_Doctrine.pdf

Not everything written in the Ensign is in clear conformity to what God has revealed, particularly with the Standard Works. God having a god, having a God, etc. do not line up with the Standard Works. The Standard Works are part of the LDS official faith and worship.

So when this is printed in the Ensign, it's authoritative, but the quote from the King Follett Discourse is not?

[Darren10]

So when this is printed in the Ensign, it's authoritative, but the quote from the King Follett Discourse is not?

Neither is inherently authoritative.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

I could not agree more. When has a God having a God, having a God, etc. ever been established by proclamation by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Even in official Church publications this idea is never declared by them but by individual members.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.

[1]

Anything else is valuable and may be of use for explanation, exhortation, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:

If anyone,

regardless of his position in the Church

, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion

. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church,

who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church

. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

[3]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Official_or_core_doctrine

[semlogo]

Neither is inherently authoritative.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

I could not agree more. When has a God having a God, having a God, etc. ever been established by proclamation by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Even in official Church publications this idea is never declared by them but by individual members.

When a statement made by a general authority is not viewed as in harmony with official doctrine, the usual response is not to continually reprint it in publications intended for the general membership.

Edited February 20, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

http://en.fairmormon...r_core_doctrine

These are great quotes, but how do you know they don't represent opinion? I really like the Harold B. Lee quote, but things don't seem to operate like that anymore.

[theplains]

When has a God having a God, having a God, etc. ever been established by proclamation by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Even in official Church publications this idea is never declared by them but by individual members.

When Heavenly Mother and Father procreated their spirit children (as per the church's

"The Family: A Proclamation to the World"), were there any who were not born Gods?

Thanks,

Jim

[Darren10]

I could not agree more. When has a God having a God, having a God, etc. ever been established by proclamation by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Even in official Church publications this idea is never declared by them but by individual members.

That is to say, individual members quote past singlular events which this idea was presented.

[Darren10]

When Heavenly Mother and Father procreated their spirit children (as per the church's

"The Family: A Proclamation to the World"), were there any who were not born Gods?

Thanks,

Jim

I think we are all gods as children of el elyon, the Most High God. And the Proclamation to the World does not declare a Heavenly Mother though I do think that this is precisely whom it refers to as the counterpart to the Father when it says, "heavenly parents".

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

These are great quotes, but how do you know they don't represent opinion? I really like the Harold B. Lee quote, but things don't seem to operate like that anymore.

As far as I know this is precisely how things still work. The Proclamation to the World is a perfect example of it.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

When a statement made by a general authority is not viewed as in harmony with official doctrine, the usual response is not to continually reprint it in publications intended for the general membership.

Inidivdual members may repeat it as much as they feel and or think they should. I do not since I do not find the idea of infinite regression as official LDS doctrine and repeating it will cause others to think it is. However, the idea does not contradict any official LDS doctrine but I wantto emphasize that is is neither endorsed by it. Due to the lack of cntradiction, it, of course, may be printed many times in the Ensign and even in LDS lesson manuals. But to declare it an official LDS dctrine as represented by the LDS Church, it *must* be voted upon by the first Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and then to the Priesthood body and then to the general membership ofthe Church. Infinite Regression never has so far as I know.

Like I said, I think there's truth to it but it is NOT part of my faith or worship. Mine is on the Father who is the first of all and supreme above all and my faith is through His Son, Jesus Christ.

[semlogo]

As far as I know this is precisely how things still work. The Proclamation to the World is a perfect example of it.

The Proclamation is a revelation? Was it sustained by the general membership as a new revelation? Honest question.

The current stance against gay marriage did not come with an accompanying revelation/sustaining of the type described by Harold B. Lee. Quite a lot of doctrine seems to be interpretation of scripture rather than new revelation, with no sustaining vote.

[semlogo]

Inidivdual members may repeat it as much as they feel and or think they should. I do not since I do not find the idea of infinite regression as official LDS doctrine and repeating it will cause others to think it is. However, the idea does not contradict any official LDS doctrine but I wantto emphasize that is is neither endorsed by it. Due to the lack of cntradiction, it, of course, may be printed many times in the Ensign and even in LDS lesson manuals. But to declare it an official LDS dctrine as represented by the LDS Church, it *must* be voted upon by the first Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and then to the Priesthood body and then to the general membership ofthe Church. Infinite Regression never has so far as I know.

Like I said, I think there's truth to it but it is NOT part of my faith or worship. Mine is on the Father who is the first of all and supreme above all and my faith is through His Son, Jesus Christ.

That's perfectly legitimate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what to believe.

But I can think of doctrine (ie teachings of the church) that has not been voted upon by the general membership:

Gay marriage stance

Stance on masturbation

Current Word of Wisdom interpretation

Ban on women having the priesthood