Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I asked, "at one time the LDS taught we should have many wives, and now they don't."Why prefer the later revelation?Because God stated you shall engage in plural marriage only when I command it, he wants us to listen to him when he speaks, not just go back and dig up his words to past cultures and individuals. He wants to have a relationship with us as well as with them. In Moses' time, he commanded them to practice it when necessary for levirate marriages, in Jacob of the BoM's time, he commanded them not to...so they didn't or were chastised by the prophets of their time; in Joseph Smith's time, he commanded them to do so, and those who didn't he chastised, and in our time, he has commanded us not to, so those that do are usually excommunicated. 1
sheilauk Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I'm sure others can answer this better, however, (from memory - I haven't checked any references and I know that I should!)Post #121volgadon, on 17 June 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.Tacenda replied: True, thanks. ****************************************I was owning up to the scripture I provided not using the exact word "wives". But when FlyOnTheWall posted what he did, I couldn't not have a source of what the round about meaning of the scripture meant, to me anyway. Don't you think part of Abraham 3 is referring to these sources? No - those people were referring to the scriptures and their interpretation, at that time. Further revelation can change interpretation. We do believe that we'll be Gods one day don't we? No, I believe the doctrine is that we will become "Like gods" - which is biblical. I think the NT makes such a reference, but I'd have to check. Like gods - does this mean celestial, eternal, divine, omniscient etc? Who knows for sure. And starting worlds without end? Why else do we have billions of stars or planets? i believe this is speculation and not doctrine - i'm sure I'll be corrected if i'm remembering wrongThat was or is the big reason people love this church, they like the idea of progression. Well, I love the Church because I feel spritually uplifted, it has a great community feel, I get a lot of answers, I can take Sacrament most weeks. My big reason is not that I like the idea of progression and I'm not sure that it is such a big reason for many others. I'm on the fence of this doctrine being true or not, the jury's still out.that we will be like gods is the doctrine (supported I believe by the Bible and I have a recollection of reading an article that argued it was belief in the early church) the rest is speculation.
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Right, so the LDS doctrine (as revealed by LDS Leaders/Prophets) is that they are trustworthy sources,No, as revealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. 1
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 say it wasn't a virgin birth. That men will becomes Gods is stemmed from this doctrine isn't it? Everything begins with it dosesn't it? I am not following your logic on this at all. Where are you getting this from?Men will become gods because that is what is taught in the scriptures and by the Spirit in my experience when God invites us to become one with him, not because Mary had Christ as a child and may or may not have been a virgin at the time. What in the world would her virginity or lack of it have to do with mankind's ultimate destination? Will it prevent a child from going up to become a doctor if his mother was married or not at the time of his birth, conceived the usual way or with artificial insemination or the child was given up for adoption?We were God's children long before the earth was created for Christ to stand upon, how could an event that came long after we were God's children and thus possible of 'growing up' to be just like him as all children are with their parents be what this doctrine of our eternal relationship came from?
Garden Girl Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 No, I believe the doctrine is that we will become "Like gods" - which is biblical. I think the NT makes such a reference, but I'd have to check. Like gods - does this mean celestial, eternal, divine, omniscient etc? Who knows for sure.i believe this is speculation and not doctrine - i'm sure I'll be corrected if i'm remembering wrongthat we will be like gods is the doctrine (supported I believe by the Bible and I have a recollection of reading an article that argued it was belief in the early church) the rest is speculation.Hello Sheilauk...Please see D&C 132:19-23... to my knowledge this remains our doctrine... while in vs 20 it states "Then shall they be gods"... it does not go into what that specifically means in regard to "other worlds" etc, however in v. 19 being part of a fulness of glory and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. I do not know what that will entail exactly, but trust in the Lord that it will be wonderful.GG
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. If you remain a faithful Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.Don't you feel a little skeptical about a site that begins with "The Mormon: Heresy on Heresy" in bright red letters?
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Tacenda,Given your history, quoting a bunch of book titles and page numbers just does not do it. You will need to give us the exact quote, rather than your interpretation of what they say.It wasn't her interpretation, she cut and pasted from an anti-mormon site....
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I am not following your logic on this at all. Where are you getting this from?Men will become gods because that is what is taught in the scriptures and by the Spirit in my experience when God invites us to become one with him, not because Mary had Christ as a child and may or may not have been a virgin at the time. What in the world would her virginity or lack of it have to do with mankind's ultimate destination? Will it prevent a child from going up to become a doctor if his mother was married or not at the time of his birth, conceived the usual way or with artificial insemination or the child was given up for adoption?We were God's children long before the earth was created for Christ to stand upon, how could an event that came long after we were God's children and thus possible of 'growing up' to be just like him as all children are with their parents be what this doctrine of our eternal relationship came from?It's too easy to type quickly and post without taking time to think it through. It doesn't make sense to me either, so keep me in check whenever you see this.
Garden Girl Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) It wasn't her interpretation, she cut and pasted from an anti-mormon site....Which in a way, Cal, is one Tacenda's biggest problems... she's not thinking for herself, merely parroting the anti-site rather than doing the studying from appropriate Church sites and scriptures, and seeking confirmation of the Spirit... as long as she continues to play in the fields of anti-sites, she will continue to be on the fence or invite misunderstanding of our doctrine...edit to add: I don't see anything wrong with being aware of what the anti-sites portray about us, but when someone is struggling and confused it's sort of counterproductive.GG Edited June 18, 2013 by Garden Girl
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=engBlessings of ExaltationWhat are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith inJesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.4. They will receive a fulness of joy.5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 2:36; italics in original).
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Which in a way, Cal, is one Tacenda's biggest problems... she's not thinking for herself, merely parroting the anti-site rather than doing the studying from appropriate Church sites and seeking confirmation of the Spirit... as long as she continues to play in the fields of anti-sites, she will continue to be on the fence or invite misunderstanding of our doctrine...GGI do think it should be pointed out that she later added original sources to her post...but she should have started there, not ended there.There are tons of original source materials that are available online to be read, one doesn't have to reference the antisites in order to know what they mean, one can read them for themselves and decide for oneself. There are some great readings at BOAP and the Church just put up some more original source material one can study. I am sure people can come up with plenty of questions just reading those as it is from a different time and culture than ours with people who brought a lot of their own former religions into the Church's culture and practices as baggage....too many people assume that the Church and its early members somehow sprang to life untouched and without reference to its surrounding culture, political, social and religious. One has to do a lot of work figuring out what is original to the Church and what is not and if that "not" is 'contamination' or 'the truth that they brought with them'. Edited June 18, 2013 by calmoriah
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) It wasn't her interpretation, she cut and pasted from an anti-mormon site....I just provided the articles in context, but they are gone now. The mods may have deleted them. Yes, I did see these refs on a site, probably anti, but without them would I have known this existed in my church? I took the refs and looked them up and read them, as I have in the past for several years. I was in a hurry and pasted the refs. Now I'm stuck getting myself out of crud now. But do you not agree that these things were said? Can the church continually change doctrine this easily. I still believe it's doctrine.ETA: Oops the mods didn't delete them, I see they're still there. Edited June 18, 2013 by Tacenda
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Can the church continually change doctrine this easily. I don't put limits on God, do you?
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I just provided the articles in context, but they are gone now. The mods may have deleted them. Does this post not include the content you put up? If not, you need to be more careful as it is likely you used material from an anti-site that had temple content on it...you will never get off limited if you continue to take those kinds of shortcuts.
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I don't put limits on God, do you?No, but it feels like someone yanking my chain.
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Does this post not include the content you put up? If not, you need to be more careful as it is likely you used material from an anti-site that had temple content on it...you will never get off limited if you continue to take those kinds of shortcuts.No, none of them were anti sources, GG. I just noticed that they didn't delete I just failed to go back far enough on the thread. Now I'm going to walk my dog and take a break, I'm feeling beat. You guys/gals win, I guess I better live in the now and forget the past. Easier said then done! Take care Cal and GG, have a wonderful day, you two are awesome for putting up with me so kindly!
Storm Rider Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I do find the question somewhat offensive. Does any church consider their doctrine contrary to scripture? Name one that makes this admission. I have studied the scriptures for decades and the only church I have found that brings it altogether is the LDS Church. It is their teaching of scripture in a coherent manner that helps retain faith. 4
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Yes, I did see these refs on a site, probably anti, but without them would I have known this existed in my church? If the information is from church sources, then surely you could have found them just as the original researcher did....they went and studied what was written. And I bet it would be a lot easier for you do to so these days then it was for him/her way back when (I doubt that the site you used was the original, most anti-sites just borrow quotes from each other, you can often tell by the identical editing out of the stuff that contradicts or modifies their interpretations).Why are you unable to do something that others have done? Why must you depend on the predigested bile of others instead of reading the stuff for yourself?I never went to antimaterial when I was reading up on this stuff because I didn't have the internet and the local library didn't carry antistuff...I studied from my parents and grandparents libraries and then BYU (which did have antistuff but I wasn't aware of it at the time). I am not saying this is the way people should always be doing research, I don't even do research like that anymore, but you presented it as if the only way you could have found out these issues was by going to antisites that have collected church materials....and that is just a cop out in my view. There are quite a few ways to learn including seeking out more balanced nonLDS sources.
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 No, none of them were anti sources, GG. The original sources perhaps, but the one you got them from first was certainly one.
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) You guys/gals win, I guess I better live in the now and forget the past. You don't have to forget the past, just don't bother with those who take the past and rewrite it to make it appear at its worse. Instead actually study the past, skip the middlemen and go directly to the original sources and read all of it, not just the cherrypicked and altered quotes.Our history is not pristine, there is quite a bit of disturbing stuff there...as would be expected in my view in a church that is flooded with new converts all bringing baggage (some good, some not so good) from other faith traditions to a faith tradition that was neither throughly established or systematically establishing....leaving with us even today gaps in our revealed knowledge....and it's not like they were doing background checks on those who sought positions of leadership once the Church looked like it might be headed somewhere (too bad because they really could have used that with Bennett).But if the only way you are willing to study history is through taking shortcuts, then I would say forget it, like many unfamiliar shortcuts they will be more likely to lead you astray than get you there...and that includes shortcuts created by faithful LDS as well as antis. Edited June 18, 2013 by calmoriah 4
Calm Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) But do you not agree that these things were said? Can the church continually change doctrine this easily. I still believe it's doctrine.You posted a lot of material. How about going back to that post and highlighting in green those doctrines that you believe have been changed so we can discuss it in detail rather than just having to reply to whole post that contains a lot of material in it and having to somehow boil it down to a yes or no answer about whether 'it' is still doctrine or not.And do yourself a favour and delete the first paragraph that you culled from an anti-site for quick and dirty references on Mormon Heresies. Edited June 18, 2013 by calmoriah
Flyonthewall Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. If you remain a faithful Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.... <snip>I was hoping to see your version of Abraham, that you cited in your post.
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I was hoping to see your version of Abraham, that you cited in your post.Well, like fallible prophets, I'm a fallible woman. I'm not sure where I cut and pasted that, but will admit to doing that. I was in a hurry and needed to show that there is a contradiction in my view. The bible doesn't talk about Kolob and men becoming Gods. Therefore the snarky comment. I did show that in one of my replies that I was wrong about it showing wives in the Abraham scripture. And then when you wanted sources well, you know, I put in the info and came up with what I did in a hurry, I think it was an EV site that isn't fond of mormonism, so I should have taken a higher road. I just didn't grow up like Cal or many others where the gospel was taught in depth or had a library with this information in it. Or my parents kept it from me. My mom even kept from me that I had polygamous ancestry and have just learned about my famous relatives in the Martin Handcart Company, the mother and daughter that found a freshly baked pie in the road. I didn't even grow up with scripture reading in my home and never remember taking the scriptures to church. My family wasn't too spiritual that way, my dad never owned a set of scriptures. The priesthood wasn't exercised in my home, but he was sealed in the temple to my mom. She was the stalwart in the family. But in my eyes you couldn't find a more Christian man. So my apologies, I reverted back to my old ways of cutting from questionable websites for lack of patience in finding it on other places. As to the question of what my version of Abraham is? http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng Heading for Abraham Chapter 3: Abraham learns about the sun, moon, and stars by means of the Urim and Thummim—The Lord reveals to him the eternal nature of spirits—He learns of pre-earth life, foreordination, the Creation, the choosing of a Redeemer, and the second estate of man.
Ahab Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 ...I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!I sure wish political correctness had come into vogue a little bit earlier. If he had said "persons who are God" instead of "Gods" there wouldn't be nearly so much hubub about this.
Flyonthewall Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 You should be careful of using sites that are not freindly to LDS to define/describe LDS belief. A lot of times they will put their own spin on our beleifs. I have heard it put that Mormon males will be assigned their own planet with many wives, kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, birthing billions of spirit children. This is, of course, a caricature of what we really teach and would not be recognized by LDS as something we teach.Of course this leads critics to proclaim that the normal LDS member doesn't really know what the church teaches.So, it is not beneficial to use critical sources for LDS doctrine.
Recommended Posts