Is Satan A God?

[JLHPROF]

They were official canon until 1921. See https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

But I can understand why some choose to forget history.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Nobody forgets that they were canon.  Every history book indicates such.

They were canonized teachings, never revelation.  Revelation provided further light and knowledge and made the teachings (mostly) irrelevant.  But there is still much truth contained within them that is very beneficial, and nobody has said otherwise.

 

So tired of this non-issue being used to cause conflict where none exists.

[Robert F. Smith]

They were official canon until 1921. See https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

But I can understand why some choose to forget history.

 

Regards,

Jim

So you are suggesting that they were official revelation in revelatory language, and that they were actually an integral part of LDS theology?  Since the opposite is true in each case, my point was that they were jettisoned for a very good reason.  Does that make any sense, Jim?

[Stone holm]

Doesn't this really turn on what we mean by a "god"?  We Mormons have a pretty clear understanding of what we are talking about when we speak of a "god"  -- but that does not mean that "demons" which in our understanding of the order of things refers to something which is basically the moral opposite of a "god" do not exercise some powers that look similar to god-like powers.   But in olden times, and in some cultures even today, the difference between a "demon" and a "god" gets a little hard to discern.  And if you define a "god" strickly in terms of the potential power that is wielded, rather than in terms of good or evil -- well things start getting really dicey.  It starts to remind one of the comments made about the wielders of the phoenix feathered wands in Olivander's shop in Harry Potter, when Olivander says that "he who must not be named" did "great things".  Under that kind of reasoning, one would come to the conclusion that for example Hitler was a great personage and hence god-like as to the power and influence that he had for a short while -- yet nearly all of us would say he was demon-like.  So ultimately, it depends on what you mean by a "god" -- doesn't it?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Stone holm

[Uncle Dale]

The Lectures on Faith formed the 'doctrine' of the Doctrine and Covenants

until 1921 (so I have read).  I could not find why it was added and removed

to the canon without a revelation 

 

Gail

 

 

Strange --- that the Almighty allowed spurious, false doctrine to

remain published, re-published, and again re-published, in many

different languages, for so many continuous decades.

 

And never once sent an epiphany to Brigham Young, or his next 

couple of successors in the Living Prophet's office, that the false

stuff should be removed.

 

Strange --- but, I guess not unheard of. Even after all these years,

the KJV Bible is still published and re-published -- despite its having

many plain and precious parts removed by the Great & Abominable

Church; and thus, no longer containing the fulness of the Gospel.

 

Perhaps the false-doctrine D&C was allowed to exist in the same way

that the faulty KJV (and its Hebrew/Greek/Latin predecessors) was

allowed to exist, and seemingly convey God's pristine revelation.

 

UD

[JLHPROF]

Strange --- that the Almighty allowed spurious, false doctrine to

remain published, re-published, and again re-published, in many

different languages, for so many continuous decades.

 

LoF is hardly "spurious false doctrine".

If anything it exists to provide a perfect contrast between lesser light and understanding and continuing revelatory light.

It is still mostly true with just a few misunderstandings.  And there are still some great truths contained therein.

[Uncle Dale]

LoF is hardly "spurious false doctrine".

...

 

 

Well, it purports to count the generations backwards from Jesus,

and thus to provide us with the correct age of Adam's antiquity.

 

Either that is true or it is false. And it is certainly "doctrine" --

it purports to teach the Latter Day Saints, just like an instruction

manual or a catechism.  And, if I recall correctly, these things

were repeated in the pages of the Juvenile Instructor, as being

the true, proper and Church-authorized instruction for youngsters.

 

Let's say it was (is) true. At least now we know when Adam lived

and when Peleg saw continental drift tear apart his world.

 

Important stuff, for the One True Church to share with the world.

But -- of course -- it is NOT shared with the world. And, I very

much suppose that the current First Presidency would not teach

such stuff as being true and worthy a place in the Standard Works.

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Strangely appropriate;

 

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Article of Faith #9

 

And

 

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Bruce R. McConkie

[theplains]

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Bruce R. McConkie

 

Jehovah's Witnesses adopt this old light / new light mantra too.  Unfortunately it didn't help

the Seventh Day Adventists when they experienced their 'Great Disappointment' event.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

“Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said …

...

 

 

 

This has me somewhat confused.

 

If the Living Prophet says that the Prophet can never lead

the Church astray -- should we believe it or not?

 

It seems like a contradiction to me. Suppose President

Woodruff says that the Prophet can never lead the

Church astray -- and then President Grant tells us to

forget everything Woodruff said.

 

And then suppose that President Benson comes along

and tells us not to accept what President Grant said

about President Woodruff's prophetic counsel?

 

Is THAT what Elder McConkie was getting at? To disregard

past revelation/inspiration/guidance, if the current Living

Prophet says that a previous prophet led the Church astray?

 

UD

[JLHPROF]

This has me somewhat confused.

 

If the Living Prophet says that the Prophet can never lead

the Church astray -- should we believe it or not?

 

It seems like a contradiction to me. Suppose President

Woodruff says that the Prophet can never lead the

Church astray -- and then President Grant tells us to

forget everything Woodruff said.

 

And then suppose that President Benson comes along

and tells us not to accept what President Grant said

about President Woodruff's prophetic counsel?

 

Is THAT what Elder McConkie was getting at? To disregard

past revelation/inspiration/guidance, if the current Living

Prophet says that a previous prophet led the Church astray?

 

UD

 

That's why I stick to Joseph Smith

 

"Oh ! I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling and your election sure ; and if any man preach any other Gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed ; and some of you who now hear me shall see it, and know that I testify the truth concerning them.  TPJS 151"

and

"The prophet Joseph Smith taught that: "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

 

I completely disagree with “Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said …"