Mormons Starting To Think And Talk Like Protestants

[halconero]

And yet he was always a member of the Godhead. This makes me think of the chicken and the egg question.

The chicken's ancestor was a protein that developed into a single-called organism which would replicate itself until evolution forced it out of the primordial slime in which the resulting descendants were living in. Eventually natural selection would favour the gestation of offspring in a hard, thin shell. These offspring would, at some point be so dissimilar to their ancestors, without the ability to reproduce except within their own kind.

Following the invasion of Brittania by Germanic Angles and Saxons linguistic development on this isle would eventually result in English word "chicken" as a name for said species. Latin, out of spite for losing to the barbarian hordes, would later come up with a much longer name for this fowl.

So according to evolution the egg came first.

(Please don't take anything more than a silly joke from this)

[EllenMaksoud]

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

Wow, our Elder Missionaries do not even know what it is. I am going to have so much fun educating them! 

[Storm Rider]

I think it is a preposterous statement that the LDS Church is sounding more and more Protestant.  The most apparent connection is Jesus Christ (and I think the Church talks more about him than even they do), but even he is not significant enough in their view to overcome LDS teachings of the need for ordinances by one having authority, Exaltation, Godhead, vicarious ordinances, revelation/open canon, organization of the Church, and the importance of missionary service. It has always surprised me that following Jesus was not significant enough to qualify as a Christian or to be viewed as more alike than dissimilar, but that is the position of the majority of Christian churches.

 

I suspect that what was meant that those early speculations that were never doctrinal are not continued to be discussed commonly. Frankly, I prefer to keep speculation from the pulpit to a minimum, as in never. I hold the leaders to be prophets, seers, and revelators. If they are going to speak from the pulpit, speak as such. Your opinion (from the pulpit) is of no value to me. I have neighbors that I know much better and if I am looking for an opinion, I would just as soon talk to them for such.

[Stone holm]

What?  Don't you realize a grand Father is also a Father?  As well as a great grand Father?  And a great... great grand Father?

 

Or do you think a Father is only a Father if he is neither a grand nor a great Father?

 

Just think about it, some more.  I'm sure you'll realize the truth of this sooner or later.

A grandfather is a father to his children, but we know nothing of our Heavenly Grandfathers, for us as far as worship goes there is only our Heavenly Father and His Son. While father is a title, for us it is a title which relates only in terms of another.

[Teancum]

It was funeral sermon, not the Sermon on the Mount. Snow is correct, we will become like him, but we will not become him, nor ever in any universe, his "equal". What people don't like is what people try to interject into KFD and trying to elevate it over canonized scripture.

 

 

The KFD has been quoted by leaders, used in manuals, reference in the Ensign thousands upon thousands of time. The idea that when we become gods we will procreate and people worlds with those children we procreate has been in the manuals, taught be LDS leader since JS and has been spken of from the GC pulpit on a frequent basis. 

 

To argue these are not part of the LDS doctrine is absurd.  The newsroom Q&A on the LDS web site that disavows the LDS Church teaches that exalted beings are not creators of worlds is extremely disingenuous.  Perhaps the Church justifies this based on the "get our own planet" comments because the doctrine of exaltation and creation by those exalted teaches the exalted are still under the authority of God the Father and Jesus Christ.  But to say we don't teach it, or have not is simply not honest.

[Teancum]

The KFD isn't doctrine. It has never been accepted by the Church as doctrine. I'm prefectly fine with the KFD as having some doctrianal statements in it.

It has hardly gone into oblivion. When we constantly talk about how man can become like God. OTOH How God the Father was once a man not so much.

 

 

Bunk. It is doctrine by its frequent use in LDS manuals, magazines and in teachings by LDS leaders across the pulpit.

[Stone holm]

Bunk. It is doctrine by its frequent use in LDS manuals, magazines and in teachings by LDS leaders across the pulpit.

 

Oh where is CASTeinman these days to carry on an argument about what is "doctrine"?  I agree with Teancum that the sermon is so embedded in our teachings that if it is not doctrine, its pretty darn close.

[Teancum]

Oh where is CASTeinman these days to carry on an argument about what is "doctrine"?  I agree with Teancum that the sermon is so embedded in our teachings that if it is not doctrine, its pretty darn close.

 

 

Stephen Robinson also makes this argument in the book How Wide the Divide.

[mnn727]

Doctrine is declared  in the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, BoM, PoGP, D&C) - its called the Standard Works because its the Standard to which we hold all other teachings.

[Questing Beast]

How is it that we are losing our radical theology and sounding more and more like Protestants.  People are denouncing the King Follett Sermon, and doubting the Snow Couplet.  Is this what we get from sanitizing the lesson materials?

I think the morphing is more direct than that: when you study the religion's doctrines compared to what other religions say about their doctrines (cutting out what the LDS says that the others believe), you find very little if any significant difference. The biggest E.G. is Trinity or Godhead doctrine. The arguments boil down to semantics for the most part. Nobody can clearly differentiate between Mormon Godhead and orthodox Trinity doctrine. I have tried, and decided that the differences are semantics and natural aversion to admit that you are not superior. Mormons are admitting to themselves that they are not superior, so why not be essentially the same? And if essentially the same, why not act alike?...

Edited August 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[thesometimesaint]

Bunk. It is doctrine by its frequent use in LDS manuals, magazines and in teachings by LDS leaders across the pulpit.

 

The KFD is not one of our Standard Works. I never said that it wasn't frequently used, or that there were no doctrinal statements in it.

Edited August 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Doctrine is declared  in the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, BoM, PoGP, D&C) - its called the Standard Works because its the Standard to which we hold all other teachings.

A bit more according the newsroom....and I would be shocked if at least this statement made there wasn't overseen by someone in the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the 12:

 

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

It does not list manuals, magazines or frequently used sermons as sources of doctrine.  Though obviously one can assume one will find doctrine within those pages, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all within is doctrine.  Not all within the standard works are viewed as doctrine even, I believe, such as the understanding Joseph Smith had of Song of Solomon, IIRC.

[Stone holm]

A bit more according the newsroom....and I would be shocked if at least this statement made there wasn't overseen by someone in the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the 12:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

It does not list manuals, magazines or frequently used sermons as sources of doctrine.  Though obviously one can assume one will find doctrine within those pages, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all within is doctrine.  Not all within the standard works are viewed as doctrine even, I believe, such as the understanding Joseph Smith had of Song of Solomon, IIRC.

 

Yep, who needs prophets and general authorities or what they have said in ages past, we have Standard Works and the Articles of Faith, we don't need anything else....hmm....doesn't that kind of sound like "Bible, Bible we got a Bible..."?

[thesometimesaint]

Yep, who needs prophets and general authorities or what they have said in ages past, we have Standard Works and the Articles of Faith, we don't need anything else....hmm....doesn't that kind of sound like "Bible, Bible we got a Bible..."?

 

I for one certainly am not claiming that. Nor do I believe the Church through its newsroom is either. We do have modern revelation, and each of us individually is entitled to revelation of our own. What we individually don't have is revelation for the whole Church.

[Stone holm]

I for one certainly am not claiming that. Nor do I believe the Church through its newsroom is either. We do have modern revelation, and each of us individually is entitled to revelation of our own. What we individually don't have is revelation for the whole Church.

 

Except last I heard Prophets did have the key for revelation for the whole Church which is recognized by Correllation so long as they don't say anything controversial or off script or repeat things that the early brethren have taught which might offend the "world".

[Calm]

Yep, who needs prophets and general authorities or what they have said in ages past, we have Standard Works and the Articles of Faith, we don't need anything else....hmm....doesn't that kind of sound like "Bible, Bible we got a Bible..."?

Your jumping here is amazing, though unfortunately not recordbreaking.....

[Stone holm]

Your jumping here is amazing, though unfortunately not recordbreaking.....

 

I'll keep trying always striving to break records....

[thesometimesaint]

Except last I heard Prophets did have the key for revelation for the whole Church which is recognized by Correllation so long as they don't say anything controversial or off script or repeat things that the early brethren have taught which might offend the "world".

 

Prophets do I don't.

 

All correlation does is makes sure we're all on the same page. I find the whole Gospel controversial as far as the world is concerned. Imagine believing in a God whom cares enough for us individually that he gave his Son, and established a Church so that we are all on the same page.

 

If forced to choose between Scripture and a living Prophet of God. I'll take the Prophet every time. But I'm glad to have both. IE; Did the Scriptures of the time force Moses to lead his people out of Egypt? How popular was that?

Edited August 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[rongo]

Listening to all 5 of the youtube videos of the King Follett sermon right now. IMHO, it's our doctrine plain and simple, I don't understand why it's gone into oblivion in our SS class discussions or teaching manuals. And may be a reason for Stone holm's angst.

One of our missionaries (a really sharp one waiting on a visa to Argentina) came up to me a couple of weeks ago and asked if we have disavowed the Joseph Smith manual. I told him, "Of course not," and he asked about the four Hinckley interviews. I told him that, in my view, he was trying to tread lightly in a PR sense in venues where background explanation and time constraints are difficult, but that we really to believe that God was a man* and that we can become like Him. I also said that even if the Church were to attempt to officially disavow the KFD, I would continue to believe it. The missionary said he wanted to give an investigator the Joseph Smith manual, but didn't know if he should because his impression was that the KFD was in doubt (because of the Hinckley interviews). I told him, by all means, give it to the investigator.

 

*My personal belief is like Joseph Smith's in the Sermon in the Grove: God was a Savior like Jesus is on our earth, not "just" a man like you and I. In this sense, God was "once a man," just as Jesus was also "once a man" (while being God also).

[rongo]

I think that we need to give him a break. He was rather old and was probably surprised by the question. I don't think that he had any preparation for the interview. I don't think that he meant to deflect from it  because i don't think that he had time to think of a deflection. I am sure that he realized afterwards that he goofed it.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by rongo

[Stone holm]

He gave similar responses in the Time interview and in a San Francisco Chronicle interview --- it wasn't just Larry King. His careful responses ("I don't know much about it," "I don't know that we teach it," "I know the philosophical background about it but don't know much about it") were certainly a deflection of the issue. Technically, what he said was true, but the impression given is a deemphasis and minimization. Cf. the young elder in our ward right now.

But we aren't trying to conform to the world, nuh huh..

[why me]

He gave similar responses in the Time interview and in a San Francisco Chronicle interview --- it wasn't just Larry King. His careful responses ("I don't know much about it," "I don't know that we teach it," "I know the philosophical background about it but don't know much about it") were certainly a deflection of the issue. Technically, what he said was true, but the impression given is a deemphasis and minimization. Cf. the young elder in our ward right now.

I think that in a normal circumstance it would have been ignored. The problem is with the critics who use it to show that the leaders lie. This is the problem. No one is perfect and we should be free to less stress something. But in the internet age, anything can be interpreted with a negative. I feel sorry for the guy. All that good work he did is now forgotten because of a larry king interview. It is a little pathetic.

[Storm Rider]

Bunk. It is doctrine by its frequent use in LDS manuals, magazines and in teachings by LDS leaders across the pulpit.

 

Bunk, the KFD is not and has never been doctrine of the Church. Do you have a complete understanding, or has any prophet ever described in any degree of detail, what each individual will be doing in the Celestial Kingdom? The simple answer is no. My beliefs and the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ do not encompass this teaching at the present time. More importantly, the best we can say is that we will be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. Now, if you can define that in words, please do so, but please don't try and tell me the KFD does that or even comes close.

[why me]

Bunk, the KFD is not and has never been doctrine of the Church. Do you have a complete understanding, or has any prophet ever described in any degree of detail, what each individual will be doing in the Celestial Kingdom? The simple answer is no. My beliefs and the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ do not encompass this teaching at the present time. More importantly, the best we can say is that we will be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. Now, if you can define that in words, please do so, but please don't try and tell me the KFD does that or even comes close.

There may be some confusion about this. I do think that the church does respect the KFD and are rather proud of the discourse. As they should be. And I do think that the church should be proud of the theology contained in King Follett. Here is a great article from the ensign:

 

http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b79b27cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

Joseph Smith also discovered that the Creation was the result of organization. During the Nauvoo period, he continued to speak about the Creation in terms of organization. William Clayton, the Prophet’s private secretary, reported Joseph Smith as saying in 1841, “This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live.” 36 In the famed King Follett discourse, delivered at general conference in April 1844, Joseph Smith presented an extensive treatise on creation as organization. He told the Saints that the word create comes from the Hebrew word baurau [bara], which means to organize, and that “God had materials to organize the world out of chaos … [which] may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed.” 37

 

The entire article in the ensign was very good. This was in 1989. We need this kind of ensign.

Edited August 21, 2013 by why me

[Storm Rider]

As a whole it is not considered doctrine. The problem is that it presents more questions than it answers. I do not disagree that the KFD contains some significant, true concepts, but it remains incomplete and unexplained. I personally reject the idea that Exaltation means couples will fly out into the uncreated universes and create worlds on which to populate their spiritual offspring. The reason I reject this statement is that is facile and inane. It causes me to ask for what purpose would that happen? Who actually creates? Wouldn't it be created just as this world was created?  Who is the Savior of such worlds? Would there be a need for a Savior? Who is God in this context? What does becoming one with God mean? Whose glory are we talking about?

 

God was once a man. In what context?  A man like Jesus was a man or a man like you and I are man?  The Bible easily supports that the Father was a man like the Savior was a man, but the Bible does not support the concept that the Father was a man like we are men. 

 

Gods? in what context are we talking gods? Are we talking in the context that the scriptures use, particularly the Bible, that describes us as gods? Or are we talking Gods as in the Father is God.

 

There are many plain and precious truths and we mess them up just as easily as any other group does WHEN we allow men to speculate and then never confirm or deny the truth thereof.  It is either true or it is not. 

 

While I am on this soap box of mine, I will share another pet peeve.  We recognize that the FP and the Q12 individually are prophets, seers, and revelators and hold the Priesthood keys.  When was the last time that any single member acted, performed, functioned as a seer?  A prophet?  A revelator?  Are they prophets, seers, and revelators if they never function as such?

 

One of the things I admire about the CofC is that their leaders continued to function as prophets; they added revelations to their canon.  We on the other hand have stumbled along with divers policies, phrases, and talks and very, very little to show for actual revelation since the time of Joseph. 

 

There is a far cry from giving a talk in GC and functioning as a prophet. In many respects we do a lot of running in place, maintaining the Church, and a lot less of anything else.

 

The way I pacify myself is that I agree that in the Lord's time he will act, and when we are worthy more will be given as was promised. However, I do get really tired of hearing about some doddering old men from Happy Valley leading the Church. They are more often than not from Utah and for Utah. Yet when they speak in GC they really only speak to LDS. So seldom do they take the stand and speak to the world at large. The Church and its leaders are the tiny voice in the wilderness that occasionally talks about politics; the reality is they hold the keys of Salvation in their hands and I would really like them to stop talking to the members and talk to the world about spiritual matters.