Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I for one have no problem with it. Am I supposed to?I want to be clear, that I also have no issues with it. Even if it were doctrine in full I don't really care. But as such it is import to note what is official doctrine and what is not. Esp in the context of a critic just throwing crap to the wall and seeing if it sticks. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I want to be clear, that I also have no issues with it. Even if it were doctrine in full I don't really care. But as such it is import to note what is official doctrine and what is not. Esp in the context of a critic just throwing crap to the wall and seeing if it sticks. I agree with this, but at the same time I have no intention of tiptoeing around other religions where mine is concerned.If it offends an evangelical Christian that Mormons might believe God was once a man or that men can become Gods, why should that prevent me from 100% owning it. I mean, a Christian believing in Christ might offend a Jew or Muslim, but they don't backpedal on that. I refuse to backpedal on any teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I believe he was God's mouthpiece on the earth and I believe his teachings.Critics can criticize my beliefs all they want. I'm not backing down from them. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I think you mean "official" doctrine. It is distinctly LDS. And I for one believe it 100% regardless of canonical adoption. I'm precise when I say doctrine. It is rather unfortunate that there are some inside and outside the Church that take any opinion expressed by any member as if it were doctrine. That just isn't the case. While I largely agree with the doctrinal statements made in the KFD there is not one original autograph of it by JS. At best we have three different renditions by three different individuals.SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I agree with this, but at the same time I have no intention of tiptoeing around other religions where mine is concerned.If it offends an evangelical Christian that Mormons might believe God was once a man or that men can become Gods, why should that prevent me from 100% owning it. I mean, a Christian believing in Christ might offend a Jew or Muslim, but they don't backpedal on that. I refuse to backpedal on any teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I believe he was God's mouthpiece on the earth and I believe his teachings.Critics can criticize my beliefs all they want. I'm not backing down from them. Haven't you noticed the political correctness out there lately? 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Joseph Smith's King Follette sermon is printed in full in 2 consecutive ensign articles. The Ensign is an official LDS publication. I have to agree. It is simple nonsense to state the KFD is not LDS doctrine. It has been published in LDS manuals, quoted from conference talks, in the Ensign, taught in seminary in institute... it is by its very regular use doctrine. Any LDS person arguing otherwise is, IMO, very disingenuous. 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Although I agree with you TSS is technically correct it has not been canonized and therefore is not official. I have my problems with this legalistic approach but it is sometimes useful. Does not matter if it is in the Canon. There is much LDS doctrine that is not in the canon. But I know apologists love to argue only canon is doctrine because it gets them out of so many problematic issues. 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 This is correct as a whole the discourse is not doctrine. Parts of it are and those are the parts found in official LDS publications. No it is NOT CORRECT.
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I have to agree. It is simple nonsense to state the KFD is not LDS doctrine. It has been published in LDS manuals, quoted from conference talks, in the Ensign, taught in seminary in institute... it is by its very regular use doctrine. Any LDS person arguing otherwise is, IMO, very disingenuous. Far too many are afraid to own our doctrine and simply answer the critics with a "yes, so what". 1
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Does not matter if it is in the Canon. There is much LDS doctrine that is not in the canon. But I know apologists love to argue only canon is doctrine because it gets them out of so many problematic issues. Only problematic if you want to be accepted and loved by those who are attacking. 1
Teancum Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Not everything published in Ensign articles is LDS doctrine.SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine Is Mormon Newsroom Canon? Own your doctrine man! 1
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Haven't you noticed the political correctness out there lately? Is Mormon Newsroom Canon? Own your doctrine man! Far too many are afraid to own our doctrine and simply answer the critics with a "yes, so what". Oh my goodness, it's driving me crazy. I even started that thread asking why we even bother arguing with trinitarians, but it just turned into another "I'm right"/"No, I'm right" back and forth so I had the mods close it. We cannot convince anyone of anything. I'm Mormon. I have a testimony. They're not going to convince me that the Bible actually does teach the trinity. And I'm not going to convince them that the Mormon interpretation is right.But I'm not being PC about my beliefs. They are what they are. Edited January 9, 2015 by JLHPROF 2
ERayR Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Oh my goodness, it's driving me crazy. I even started that thread asking why we even bother arguing with trinitarians, but it just turned into another "I'm right"/"No, I'm right" back and forth so I had the mods close it. We cannot convince anyone of anything. I'm Mormon. I have a testimony. They're not going to convince me that the Bible actually does teach the trinity. And I'm not going to convince them that the Mormon interpretation is right.But I'm not being PC about my beliefs. They are what they are. And I do not see you jumping behind "It is not Official Doctrine" all the time either. We are good, I hope.
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 And I do not see you jumping behind "It is not Official Doctrine" all the time either. We are good, I hope. You will never see me use that excuse because I personally believe it's meaningless to what's true or not true. 1
Canadaigua Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 CanadaiguaJoseph Smith's King Follette sermon is printed in full in 2 consecutive ensign articles. The Ensign is an official LDS publication. thesometimesaintNot everything published in Ensign articles is LDS doctrine.SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrineThe important thing about the King Follett sermon and the fact that it was reprinted in the LDS Ensign is that it validates that Joseph Smith actually gave the sermon and what was said in the sermon, as opposed to other LDS documents where the question of authenticity may come into play. Here we have the founder and prophet of the LDS church who (supposedly) actually saw God personally and regularly communicated with him and he is telling us something important about him. Who would be better at informing us about the nature of God than Joseph Smith. And what was an important teaching that he conveyed to us? That God has not always been God. LDS today may try and claim that this is false doctrine but then they run into a slippery slope of questioning everything else that Joseph Smith has given to us.
JLHPROF Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 And what was an important teaching that he conveyed to us? That God has not always been God. LDS today may try and claim that this is false doctrine but then they run into a slippery slope of questioning everything else that Joseph Smith has given to us. Who claims that this is false doctrine? I'm LDS and I 100% believe it to be true.Now is it canonized Church doctrine? Probably not, but who cares. It's still true and Joseph Smith was right, just as he always was.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Does not matter if it is in the Canon. There is much LDS doctrine that is not in the canon. But I know apologists love to argue only canon is doctrine because it gets them out of so many problematic issues. It isn't just me.SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine 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. The KFD has never gone through Common Consent of the Church.
Tacenda Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 TSS, so you don't believe God was once a man?
Flyonthewall Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 TSS, so you don't believe God was once a man?Not meaning to split hairs, but God is a man - perfected and exalted - Man of Holiness. Moses 6:57 ...Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man... Jesus was God before He became Mortal. To me, the time in which God the Father may have been mortal is before eternity - outside my ability to understand. So, while it can be said He was a mortal man, it can also be said that He has been God eternally.
Tacenda Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Not meaning to split hairs, but God is a man - perfected and exalted - Man of Holiness.Moses 6:57...Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man...Jesus was God before He became Mortal.To me, the time in which God the Father may have been mortal is before eternity - outside my ability to understand.So, while it can be said He was a mortal man, it can also be said that He has been God eternally.And believe it or not that goes along with the Trinitarian view because God was a mortal man and then God eternally, before and after He came to the earth to save us.
Flyonthewall Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 And believe it or not that goes along with the Trinitarian view because God was a mortal man and then God eternally, before and after He came to the earth to save us.Except for that whole essence/substance/nature/being thing. I see the concept of the Trinity as man's philosophical attempt to define the oneness of the Godhead. It is not accurate, but they lay their foundational belief upon it and then exclude those that do not accept the inaccuracy. Of course there are going to be overlapping beliefs, we recognize that. 1
ERayR Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) And believe it or not that goes along with the Trinitarian view because God was a mortal man and then God eternally, before and after He came to the earth to save us. Not quite. As I understand God the Father is not and has never been mortal (that is a big point of contention between LDS and other Christians) and it was God the son who partook of mortality. Edited January 10, 2015 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 TSS, so you don't believe God was once a man? I didn't say that. I believe God the Father was/is a man, albeit a perfect one. Unfortunately the only earthly example we have is God Jesus the Christ.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Is Mormon Newsroom Canon? Own your doctrine man! No it is isn't Canon or doctrine. What it does do is restate the doctrine of Common Consent.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 The important thing about the King Follett sermon and the fact that it was reprinted in the LDS Ensign is that it validates that Joseph Smith actually gave the sermon and what was said in the sermon, as opposed to other LDS documents where the question of authenticity may come into play. Here we have the founder and prophet of the LDS church who (supposedly) actually saw God personally and regularly communicated with him and he is telling us something important about him. Who would be better at informing us about the nature of God than Joseph Smith. And what was an important teaching that he conveyed to us? That God has not always been God. LDS today may try and claim that this is false doctrine but then they run into a slippery slope of questioning everything else that Joseph Smith has given to us. SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible
Freedom Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Not all truth is doctrine and not all doctrine is eternal truth. Not all truth is encompassed in current scientific theories and not all current scientific theories are truth. We have a limited understanding of God and the eternities. All we have are the scriptures. We interpret the scriptures as best we can and from this come a lot of postulations that may or may not be true. Science is the same way. We have limited understanding of the universe around us and we interpret the data as best we can. Nevertheless, the source data for our doctrine is the scriptures. Prophets interpret this source just as scientists interpret the natural world. As more light and knowledge comes forth, the church modifies how it interprets the doctrine. We do not have set dogma because we accept continuing revelation. it is naive to suppose that all we will ever need to know is found in the bible. The vast majority of times when critics claim our doctrine keeps changing, it is not the doctrine, but interpretations or speculations that change. I cannot imagine what our world would be like if we still clung to our interpretations of the physical world from thousands of years ago. Yikes. Religions who cling to their dogma breed ignorance and radical fundamentalism. 1
Recommended Posts