Scott Lloyd Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 I read complaints from critics on this board from time to time -- including disaffected or former Church members -- that the doctrine of the Church is ill-defined. In a very recent post on his blog, Sic et Non, Daniel Peterson has taken up this subject and identified 50 questions to which the Church provides unambiguously clear answers. I thought it insightful enough that I have chosen to migrate his list over to this board. I hope and trust Professor Peterson won't mind. Quote Does God exist? Is God pure spirit, or is God corporeal? Is God our Father? Does God have a Son? Is Jesus God’s Son? Is Jesus divine? Did Jesus atone for our sins? Is there an alternate path to heaven other than through Jesus? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Will Jesus return at the end of the world? Will Jesus judge the world? Does the Bible contain the word of God? Does the Book of Mormon contain the word of God? Is the Book of Mormon ancient? Was the Book of Mormon translated by the power of God? Did Jesus visit the Americas after his resurrection? Did Jesus ascend into heaven? Did Jesus organize a church? Did the church that Jesus organized apostasize? Has the Church of Jesus Christ been restored? Did the Father and the Son appear to Joseph Smith? Was the priesthood conferred upon Joseph Smith and certain others? Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold unique divine authority? Is baptism required for salvation? Is vicarious work for the dead efficacious and divinely ordained? Must such work be performed in temples, by proxy? Are those damned who perish in infancy? Are those damned who fail to accept Jesus in mortality? Will we be physically resurrected from the dead? Pending resurrection, will our spirits sleep in unconsciousness? Did Jesus visit the world of spirits between his death and resurrection? Are we predestined to salvation or damnation? Can we become like God? Does the Doctrine and Covenants contain the word of God? Was Brigham Young the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith? Is there apostolic authority in the Church today? Did Jesus really exist? Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one God in three persons as the classical creeds teach? Are we saved by grace alone, without regard for works? Is the Bible inerrant? Is the Book of Mormon inerrant? Has revelation come to an end? Do we have free will? Did we exist before we were born? Is celibacy preferable to marriage? Is a professional clergy necessary? Was Jesus the son of Joseph? Did life on Earth originate by chance, or by divine intention? Is participation in a church community important? Is partaking of “communion” important? Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/08/alleged-indeterminacy-mormon-doctrine.html#2bh6BbGFiozZGkOh.99 4
RevTestament Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 I believe the Church has well-defined doctrine on the issues which are important for our salvation and the salvation of our deceased brethren, and somewhat defined on the nature of God. I don't believe we know all things, and therefore it is important that we don't try to offer doctrine for those things lest we end up going astray like the Nicene Council. I believe the Church has more to learn about the nature of God. The Church has more to learn about the economy of God: Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was asealed on the back with seven seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, bmysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this cearth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. There are many more things to learn, and this Church teaches that it is open to them following the admonition of Paul that we hope to learn all things - that we embrace truth wherever we find it. I am glad our Church does not have a theology. That implies the conclusions of men about God, and His economy become guiding principles of the Church. I believe that shuts out God from performing His work. We must be open to revelation, and lead man to the point that we are able to receive it. Hopefully, we are doing that. For me, that has basically been my experience. The truths taught by the scriptures and the Church opened up a new way to worship God for me. I don't have to agree with everything some GA has taught to enjoy my increased understanding of God. Assuming most members are on that path, the church is becoming prepared for the next step of God in the latter days. Where our doctrine is "indeterminate" I believe it is because God willed it so to the extent that He has not given further clarification. Some things He just was not ready to disclose yet. We must accept and live the things He has taught for the Church to progress further. Be that as it may, I like your thread because it is thought provoking, and helps us to realize how much God has taught us, and how blessed we are.
stemelbow Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 What doctrine of the Church is ill-defined? What has been said ont he matter? Perhaps we can get some context to your thoughts. Maybe in some ways Mormon doctrine is ill-defined, even if in some other ways it's really well defined?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 29, 2017 Author Posted August 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I believe the Church has well-defined doctrine on the issues which are important for our salvation and the salvation of our deceased brethren, and somewhat defined on the nature of God. I don't believe we know all things, and therefore it is important that we don't try to offer doctrine for those things lest we end up going astray like the Nicene Council. I believe the Church has more to learn about the nature of God. The Church has more to learn about the economy of God: Agreed. Which is why President Gordon B. Hinckley was appropriately cautious when, in answering questions about "as man now is, God once was," he said, "I don't know that we teach that," and that it is deep doctrine that we don't know a lot about. He has been repeatedly criticized by anti-Mormons and apostates for so saying, but his words taken in context are absolutely correct.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 29, 2017 Author Posted August 29, 2017 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What doctrine of the Church is ill-defined? What has been said ont he matter? Perhaps we can get some context to your thoughts. Maybe in some ways Mormon doctrine is ill-defined, even if in some other ways it's really well defined? Since I'm in essence citing Dan Peterson, go to the link and read what he said.
RevTestament Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Agreed. Which is why President Gordon B. Hinckley was appropriately cautious when, in answering questions about "as man now is, God once was," he said, "I don't know that we teach that," and that it is deep doctrine that we don't know a lot about. He has been repeatedly criticized by anti-Mormons and apostates for so saying, but his words taken in context are absolutely correct. I believe other reasons for what happened, but I do agree the Church didn't and doesn't understand it well - or forgot what JS taught in the King Follett sermon. What better way to learn than by example?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 29, 2017 Author Posted August 29, 2017 12 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I believe other reasons for what happened, but I do agree the Church didn't and doesn't understand it well - or forgot what JS taught in the King Follett sermon. What better way to learn than by example? What did Joseph Smith teach in the KIng Follett discourse that goes into any substantive detail about the nature of God prior to His becoming God? What can we authoritatively know about that beyond the simple statement in the Lorenzo Snow couplet?
stemelbow Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Since I'm in essence citing Dan Peterson, go to the link and read what he said. No. I got Dan's perspective. I liked his 2 opening paragraphs and get where he's coming from I believe. What I was interested in was your claim here: Quote I read complaints from critics on this board from time to time -- including disaffected or former Church members -- that the doctrine of the Church is ill-defined I wonder if those on this board whom you have read from, have given us clues about what they mean about the doctrine is ill-defined. Maybe we all can come to a resolution after all.
Popular Post Benjamin McGuire Posted August 29, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) The problem, of course, is that this sort of thing isn't entirely accurate (and Dan would probably agree). We over simplify. This is the reason why there is a gap between the notion of doctrine, and the notion of policy. Policy creates rules that apply generally (or most of the time) and occasionally have exceptions. Doctrine applies to everyone. Consider for example this question - Quote Is baptism required for salvation? For Mormon Doctrine, the answer very clearly is no. Moroni 8:11-22 provides for us entire classes of persons who do not need baptism: Quote And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. ... For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing— Or this question: Quote Is celibacy preferable to marriage? This question is sort of problematic because of the idea of preference here. We might say that, no, marriage is always preferable to celibacy. But then we turn around and suggest that there are those for whom marriage simply isn't an option. Consider from http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction: Quote PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings? ELDER OAKS: ... Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. And later - Quote PUBLIC AFFAIRS: ... If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women? ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married. In other words, while the general rule of thumb is that marriage is preferred to celibacy, for some, it is simply the opposite situation. Celibacy is preferred to marriage. Or this question: Quote Do we have free will? Apart from the very basic debate of what we mean by "free will", it's obvious that whatever free will we have is quite limited. We have limitations created by biology (genetics), we have limitations imposed by society and culture, and sometimes we have limitations imposed by others . The Book of Mormon tells us that our free will is quite limited. And Lehi explains that while the degree to which we have free will is sufficient for the purposes of mortality (we are only free according to the flesh), he goes on to explain that real free will comes to us after our judgment and redemption - as he tells us (2 Nephi 2:26): Quote And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Or this question: Quote Is a professional clergy necessary? What do we mean by professional clergy? Do we mean a Church leadership that devotes all of their time to their leadership call, and is given a living stipend by the Church to assist them in that work? Or do we mean a class of professionals that are trained to be ecclesiastical leaders, get degrees and so on? This kind of thing depends very much on definitions. We certainly have a paid leadership at the highest levels of the Church, and we find it necessary to pay them. So, how exactly do we distinguish between what we have with our paid leadership and the idea of a professional clergy? And if we need to make that sort of statement to distinguish it, doesn't it mean that this yes or no question is somewhat inadequate to describe what we have in the Church? (I note in passing that it was this idea of not having paid clergy that kept the Church from extending just such a stipend to Joseph and Hiram in the early years ... so it is very much a relevant sort of comparison). While many of these questions are very straight forward, some of them are not so much. I suspect that Dan would be quite willing to admit that we have a far easier time explaining doctrine when we present it in the context of what we believe, instead of (as he does here) trying to contrast our beliefs with other sects of Christianity (more of a necessity given the forum in which he produces his list). In 1847, we had a fairly well defined doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom that did not come with three divisions, and did not have families sealed back to their ancestors for generations and generations - using instead sealings of adoption to create the primary connective tissue holding together the family of God. We didn't start sealing people to their deceased parents more generally until 1894, and the three tiered Celestial Kingdom doesn't show up until 1878. And of course, our well established doctrine of blacks not holding the priesthood gets overturned in 1978. Part of the idea that our doctrine is "ill-defined" comes from the fact that it changes. This isn't usually an issue for us as members. We generally embrace change. So obviously our doctrine can change, and does change. And this doesn't mean that we don't have core doctrines which we don't expect will change. But it does mean that defining doctrine isn't always as simple as these yes or no questions suggest, or that these questions all represent something clear and unambiguous in Mormon belief. They don't. Often (having been a member for my entire life, and having spent much of my adulthood dealing with questions about the faith and the Church), my experience is that we have both well defined and understood doctrines, and very poorly defined and understood doctrines of the Church. And we have doctrines that have changed (and evolved) as the understanding of the Church has grown. This is a facet of our faith that we should simply expect. As I noted several years ago: Quote Just as personal revelation can alter our individual perceptions of our faith and the world around us, so too revelation alters the perception of the LDS Church as a whole. The risk isn't that the Church or its members continue searching and asking for more truth, it is that at some point the Church stops searching, believing that it has found all there is to find, and concludes that God has said all that He is going to say. Edited August 29, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire 11
stemelbow Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 Just now, Benjamin McGuire said: The problem, of course, is that this sort of thing isn't entirely accurate (and Dan would probably agree). We over simplify. This is the reason why there is a gap between the notion of doctrine, and the notion of policy. Policy creates rules that apply generally (or most of the time) and occasionally have exceptions. Doctrine applies to everyone. Consider for example this question - For Mormon Doctrine, the answer very clearly is no. Moroni 8:11-22 provides for us entire classes of persons who do not need baptism: Or this question: This question is sort of problematic because of the idea of preference here. We might say that, no, celibacy is always preferable to marriage. But then we turn around and suggest that there are those for whom marriage simply isn't an option. Consider from http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction: And later - In other words, while the general rule of thumb is that marriage is preferred to celibacy, for some, it is simply the opposite situation. Celibacy is preferred to marriage. Or this question: Apart from the very basic debate of what we mean by "free will", it's obvious that whatever free will we have is quite limited. We have limitations created by biology (genetics), we have limitations imposed by society and culture, and sometimes we have limitations imposed by others . The Book of Mormon tells us that our free will is quite limited. And Lehi explains that while the degree to which we have free will is sufficient for the purposes of mortality (we are only free according to the flesh), he goes on to explain that real free will comes to us after our judgment and redemption - as he tells us (2 Nephi 2:26): Or this question: What do we mean by professional clergy? Do we mean a Church leadership that devotes all of their time to their leadership call, and is given a living stipend by the Church to assist them in that work? Or do we mean a class of professionals that are trained to be ecclesiastical leaders, get degrees and so on? This kind of thing depends very much on definitions. We certainly have a paid leadership at the highest levels of the Church, and we find it necessary to pay them. So, how exactly do we distinguish between what we have with our paid leadership and the idea of a professional clergy? And if we need to make that sort of statement to distinguish it, doesn't it mean that this yes or no question is somewhat inadequate to describe what we have in the Church? (I note in passing that it was this idea of not having paid clergy that kept the Church from extending just such a stipend to Joseph and Hiram in the early years ... so it is very much a relevant sort of comparison). While many of these questions are very straight forward, some of them are not so much. I suspect that Dan would be quite willing to admit that we have a far easier time explaining doctrine when we present it in the context of what we believe, instead of (as he does here) trying to contrast our beliefs with other sects of Christianity (more of a necessity given the forum in which he produces his list). In 1847, we had a fairly well defined doctrine of the Celestial Kingdom that did not come with three divisions, and did not have families sealed back to their ancestors for generations and generations - using instead sealings of adoption to create the primary connective tissue holding together the family of God. We didn't start sealing people to their deceased parents more generally until 1894, and the three tiered Celestial Kingdom doesn't show up until 1878. And of course, our well established doctrine of blacks not holding the priesthood gets overturned in 1978. Part of the idea that our doctrine is "ill-defined" comes from the fact that it changes. This isn't usually an issue for us as members. We generally embrace change. So obviously our doctrine can change, and does change. And this doesn't mean that we don't have core doctrines which we don't expect will change. But it does mean that defining doctrine isn't always as simple as these yes or no questions suggest, or that these questions all represent something clear and unambiguous in Mormon belief. They don't. Often (having been a member for my entire life, and having spent much of my adulthood dealing with questions about the faith and the Church), my experience is that we have both well defined and understood doctrines, and very poorly defined and understood doctrines of the Church. And we have doctrines that have changed (and evolved) as the understanding of the Church has grown. This is a facet of our faith that we should simply expect. As I noted several years ago: Thank you. THat was a great contribution (so much so I gave you a rep point and quoted to point out how good it was).
Scott Lloyd Posted August 29, 2017 Author Posted August 29, 2017 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: No. I got Dan's perspective. I liked his 2 opening paragraphs and get where he's coming from I believe. What I was interested in was your claim here: I wonder if those on this board whom you have read from, have given us clues about what they mean about the doctrine is ill-defined. Maybe we all can come to a resolution after all. I just seem to remember reading it quite a bit on here. I don't recall any specifically off the top of my head, though, and I'm not going to take time now to chase down anything. It's not that important to me. If that's a punishable offense, well, I'll just have to take my lumps, I guess.
stemelbow Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I just seem to remember reading it quite a bit on here. I don't recall any specifically off the top of my head, though, and I'm not going to take time now to chase down anything. It's not that important to me. If that's a punishable offense, well, I'll just have to take my lumps, I guess. no big deal. Just thought it'd be interesting to see if the complaint of lacking definition applied to something specific, which is possible. We are, after all, in some measure told the principles and left to figure the rest out on our own. Which may also suggest there is some level of lacking definition. In that sense, I'm completely comfortable with lacking definition.
blueglass Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) The authoritative doctrinal approved answers to these questions are found where? On the lds gospel topics page? If we read and compare the 29-Aug 2017 list of doctrinal answers to these questions with answers from the time of organization of the church in 1830 will we find any changes to the doctrinal answers? just a quick take on a few of the questions Does God exist? yes, but does Goddess exist? and have they always existed as God? Just check out the interviews on youtube of mormons on "God Never Sinned - Do Mormons Agree?" and you have answers all over the place on whether god was always God or godlike. When Hinckley had no straight answer on if God has always existed as God - he said a lot of "I don't know" rather than an affirmative answer. Is God pure spirit, or is God corporeal? A better question is asking if spirit is corporeal or not? Is the holy spirit God or not? Was Jehovah as spirit - a God of the old testament or not? as joseph said, "all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure" So is a higg's boson matter and therefore spirit? is a photon spirit? Can god appear as a hologram of light? Can god appear as an avatar in the form of man or woman? Is god made of hydrogen, silicon, or diamond? Is a resurrected being made of eternally regenerating stem cells? Does God exist within this universe? If so, then we know that the essential compounds, elements, and atoms were created much later after the big bang, therefore God must have existed outside of the universe for a time? Is God our Father? is Goddess our Mother? Is our mitochondrial Eve from 200kyears ago our sister? Does God have a Son? Does Goddess have a Son? Was Christ always God or not? Christians are extremely angry with mormons for worshiping a "different Jesus" precisely over this answer on whether Jesus was God and eternally God or a created or birthed being. Is Lucifer a Son or a created "anointed cherub" of Ezekiel 28? the status of the bene-elohim is critical to mormons when interpreting job 38:7 scripture Is Jesus God’s Son? is Adam the incarnate YHWH's father?, are the architects of the temples of 9,000BC Göbekli Tepe God's sons? Are black people God's sons or do they exist so "that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." ? Is Jesus divine? what does it mean to be divine? As John Welch has shown Jesus was really crucified on charges of sorcery, and/or "maiestas" not for declaring himself divine. Did Jesus atone for our sins? here we go on the law of innocence and what we mean? Christus victor, satisfaction, substitutionary, moral influence, or the more recent infinite empathy, divine ascension, or bowels of compassion views? some views of atonement are repugnant, and others more compelling but not requiring an infinite being. What happened in gethsemane? what happened on the cross? What continues to drive efficacy of atonement? Why can't god forgive our sins? who is the good friend in "the mediator" paying the hefty sum of money to? How do we incur a debt through sin? who are we indebted to? - eternally existing elements who honor god's justice? the devil? God the father? Even in Tad Callister's book he admits the following, pg 121, "The Savior's blood acts as the cleansing agent by which our "garments are made white" (1Ne 12:10), We even learn that the land of America was "redeemed" by "the shedding of blood" (D&C101:80) Thus, somehow, blood acts as a cleansing, redeeming agent. how it is done we do not know. John taylor taught: "Why it was necessary that his blood should be shed is an apparent mystery" pg 150, "As much as we weigh and sift and analyze, we must admit that we do not know with certainty how the savior encompassed man's entire gamut of woes. Perhaps future revelation will tell;" Therefore is it more honest to say in response to the question "did Jesus atone for our sins", yes, but we don't know how or why? The science of evolution is a fact, yet McConkie stated that if this were indeed true that "if death has always prevailed in the world" it would entirely destroy everything in the gospel, the fall, and the need for an atonement. That's a problem. Is there an alternate path to heaven other than through Jesus? Is terrestrial kingdom life during the millenium a heaven? Joseph Fielding Smith said, "There will be millions of people, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, Mohammedans, people of all classes, and of all beliefs, still permitted to remain upon the face of the earth, but they will be those who have lived clean lives," so there you go, live a "clean life" as an agnostic, and there is hope for you to live in heaven. Edited August 29, 2017 by blueglass 1
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I read complaints from critics on this board from time to time -- including disaffected or former Church members -- that the doctrine of the Church is ill-defined. In a very recent post on his blog, Sic et Non, Daniel Peterson has taken up this subject and identified 50 questions to which the Church provides unambiguously clear answers. I thought it insightful enough that I have chosen to migrate his list over to this board. I hope and trust Professor Peterson won't mind. I don't think it's a question that Mormons have clearly defined beliefs about the matters mentioned. One might even argue that using "face cards" or not drinking coke have been defined as "beliefs" at one time or another. Just pull out a copy of Mormon Doctrine. The issue is what beliefs MUST one agree with, in order to remain a good Mormon in full fellowship, able to hold the priesthood and attend the temple etc. That boils down to an honest answer in good conscience with only God as your judge, to the temple recommend questions. THAT to me is the strength of Mormonism. We know Joseph eschewed creeds and systematic theology, and yes, that is as it should be. We need to have a personal testimony of each of the doctrines we espouse. That does not mean that we need a testimony of each point on a list someone else has defined So I think Dan is correct- certainly those ARE our beliefs. But the issue is how we understand each of those and interpret what those mean- THAT is the issue. It's like tithing- net or gross or some other variation. Does one pay on social security which allegedly "is money I have already tithed on"? Does coke break the word of wisdom? It's all that stuff that everyone knows is debatable that is our strength in diversity in my opinion. Diversity is a strength, not a problem. Opposition in all things is the way the truth is found through the dialectic of conversation. You cannot move forward without thinking things through, and that means choice between variations of doctrine. But that was not Dan's point either- and yes the list is useful. Clearly those ARE in fact, well defined beliefs 1
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, blueglass said: The authoritative doctrinal approved answers to these questions are found where? On the lds gospel topics page? If we read and compare the 29-Aug 2017 list of doctrinal answers to these questions with answers from the time of organization of the church in 1830 will we find any changes to the doctrinal answers? just a quick take on a few of the questions Does God exist? yes, but does Goddess exist? and have they always existed as God? Just check out the interviews on youtube of mormons on "God Never Sinned - Do Mormons Agree?" and you have answers all over the place on whether god was always God or godlike. When Hinckley had no straight answer on if God has always existed as God - he said a lot of "I don't know" rather than an affirmative answer. Is God pure spirit, or is God corporeal? A better question is asking if spirit is corporeal or not? Is the holy spirit God or not? Was Jehovah as spirit - a God of the old testament or not? as joseph said, "all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure" So is a higg's boson matter and therefore spirit? is a photon spirit? Can god appear as a hologram of light? Can god appear as an avatar in the form of man or woman? Is god made of hydrogen, silicon, or diamond? Is a resurrected being made of eternally regenerating stem cells? Does God exist within this universe? If so, then we know that the essential compounds, elements, and atoms were created much later after the big bang, therefore God must have existed outside of the universe for a time? Is God our Father? is Goddess our Mother? Is our mitochondrial Eve from 200kyears ago our sister? Does God have a Son? Does Goddess have a Son? Was Christ always God or not? Christians are extremely angry with mormons for worshiping a "different Jesus" precisely over this answer on whether Jesus was God and eternally God or a created or birthed being. Is Lucifer a Son or a created "anointed cherub" of Ezekiel 28? the status of the bene-elohim is critical to mormons when interpreting job 38:7 scripture Is Jesus God’s Son? is Adam the incarnate YHWH's father?, are the architects of the temples of 9,000BC Göbekli Tepe God's sons? Are black people God's sons or do they exist so "that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." ? Is Jesus divine? what does it mean to be divine? As John Welch has shown Jesus was really crucified on charges of sorcery, and/or "maiestas" not for declaring himself divine. Did Jesus atone for our sins? here we go on the law of innocence and what we mean? Christus victor, satisfaction, substitutionary, moral influence, or the more recent infinite empathy, divine ascension, or bowels of compassion views? some views of atonement are repugnant, and others more compelling but not requiring an infinite being. What happened in gethsemane? what happened on the cross? What continues to drive efficacy of atonement? Why can't god forgive our sins? who is the good friend in "the mediator" paying the hefty sum of money to? How do we incur a debt through sin? who are we indebted to? - eternally existing elements who honor god's justice? the devil? God the father? Even in Tad Callister's book he admits the following, pg 121, "The Savior's blood acts as the cleansing agent by which our "garments are made white" (1Ne 12:10), We even learn that the land of America was "redeemed" by "the shedding of blood" (D&C101:80) Thus, somehow, blood acts as a cleansing, redeeming agent. how it is done we do not know. John taylor taught: "Why it was necessary that his blood should be shed is an apparent mystery" pg 150, "As much as we weigh and sift and analyze, we must admit that we do not know with certainty how the savior encompassed man's entire gamut of woes. Perhaps future revelation will tell;" Therefore is it more honest to say in response to the question "did Jesus atone for our sins", yes, but we don't know how or why? The science of evolution is a fact, yet McConkie stated that if this were indeed true that "if death has always prevailed in the world" it would entirely destroy everything in the gospel, the fall, and the need for an atonement. That's a problem. Is there an alternate path to heaven other than through Jesus? Is terrestrial kingdom life during the millenium a heaven? Joseph Fielding Smith said, "There will be millions of people, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, Mohammedans, people of all classes, and of all beliefs, still permitted to remain upon the face of the earth, but they will be those who have lived clean lives," so there you go, live a "clean life" as an agnostic, and there is hope for you to live in heaven. This is why Wittgenstein always wins. It's all semantics and defining the question properly. Ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. If you think Christ's blood is an effective laundry soap from that quote- and some people ARE on that level- then I think that would end the discussion. If you are not thinking clearly in the question you will not get a clear answer- perfect evidence for that is the mess above. And THIS is precisely why Mormonism wins. There is enough flexibility there to deal with different vocabularies and different descriptions of all these alleged "issues" if you think critically and examine the alternative ways of describing things I mean we do not know how much God weighs either, though he has a body, but this is not exactly a relevant question for one's belief that would change one's life. THAT is where the rubber meets the road- what questions change our lives and what questions do not. Edited August 29, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2017 Posted August 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: What did Joseph Smith teach in the KIng Follett discourse that goes into any substantive detail about the nature of God prior to His becoming God? What can we authoritatively know about that beyond the simple statement in the Lorenzo Snow couplet? For me the question has nothing to do with King Follette, the question is answered in a simple phrase "... for that is the way Father gained his knowledge" You of course will recognize the context.
SamuelTheLamanite Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Sic et Non, Daniel Peterson has taken up this subject and identified 50 questions to which the Church provides unambiguously clear answers. I thought it insightful enough that I have chosen to migrate his list over to this board. I hope and trust Professor Peterson won't mind I noticed that some Mormon intellectuals can get very creative. I thought "No Death before the Fall" doctrine was unambiguous, but I read many interesting interpretations here. So, I will try the same thing with some of the doctrines in your list "Do we have free will?" Only moral free will, or the freedom to choose between right and wrong, or the spirit and sin. "Is there an alternate path to heaven other than through Jesus?" and a pre-adamite saviour for the pre-adamites. "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" It was the Lazarus syndrome http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lazarus-phenomenon-explained-why-sometimes-deceased-are-not-dead-yet-180958613/ "Did life on Earth originate by chance, or by divine intention?" Only Human, Plant, and Animal life as described in Genesis. "Did Jesus visit the Americas after his resurrection?" Book of Mormon is true, but not historical It is very easy to find other interpretations, but I am grateful that we have General Conference talks and Gospel Topics on LDS.org. Doctrines taught and clarified multiple times by our latter-day prophets are inspired by God. Edited August 30, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
Analytics Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 19 hours ago, stemelbow said: What doctrine of the Church is ill-defined? What has been said ont he matter? Perhaps we can get some context to your thoughts. Maybe in some ways Mormon doctrine is ill-defined, even if in some other ways it's really well defined? What immediately pops into my mind is the doctrinal plan that was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. They believed the scriptures and prophets had unambiguously taught a coherent plan of salvation featuring three "pillars of eternity" consisting of the Creation, Fall, and Atonement. Earth was originally created in a perfect, deathless state. All creatures got along perfectly, and nothing died or procreated. Then when Adam fell, death entered the world--both among people and animals. The atonement will eventually fix that and return people and animals to the perfect deathless state after a resurrection. It used to be clearly believed that the Earth was about a 7,000 year plan that began when Adam fell around 4,000 BCE, was baptized when it was completely submerged by water during Noah's flood, and will climax with Jesus coming back in fire and glory to usher in the millennium around the year 2,000 CE. While the Church hasn't repudiated this view, it doesn't seem to emphasize it much anymore. It appears most educated members believe that animals had in fact been dying for hundreds of millions of years before Adam Fell, and what it means for Adam to have fallen has become quite vague. The stories of the creation and fall have become vague, ill-defined, and some might say are even mostly symbolic. That naturally leads to the question if the atonement and resurrection are symbolic, too. Different people have different theories trying to reconcile their views of scientific reality with what has been taught at church, and the Church seems to want to keep everything it says vague enough not to rock the boat. In other words, these core doctrines are ill-defined. 2
stemelbow Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Analytics said: What immediately pops into my mind is the doctrinal plan that was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. They believed the scriptures and prophets had unambiguously taught a coherent plan of salvation featuring three "pillars of eternity" consisting of the Creation, Fall, and Atonement. Earth was originally created in a perfect, deathless state. All creatures got along perfectly, and nothing died or procreated. Then when Adam fell, death entered the world--both among people and animals. The atonement will eventually fix that and return people and animals to the perfect deathless state after a resurrection. It used to be clearly believed that the Earth was about a 7,000 year plan that began when Adam fell around 4,000 BCE, was baptized when it was completely submerged by water during Noah's flood, and will climax with Jesus coming back in fire and glory to usher in the millennium around the year 2,000 CE. While the Church hasn't repudiated this view, it doesn't seem to emphasize it much anymore. It appears most educated members believe that animals had in fact been dying for hundreds of millions of years before Adam Fell, and what it means for Adam to have fallen has become quite vague. The stories of the creation and fall have become vague, ill-defined, and some might say are even mostly symbolic. That naturally leads to the question if the atonement and resurrection are symbolic, too. Different people have different theories trying to reconcile their views of scientific reality with what has been taught at church, and the Church seems to want to keep everything it says vague enough not to rock the boat. In other words, these core doctrines are ill-defined. Excellent example. This was the type of example that I had hoped to explore to explain in response to Scott's view, that in some cases there is plenty of ambiguity or lack of definition within Mormonism. So, it's possible the claim has some merit, depending on context.
RevTestament Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 18 hours ago, mfbukowski said: For me the question has nothing to do with King Follette, the question is answered in a simple phrase "... for that is the way Father gained his knowledge" You of course will recognize the context. The King Follett discourse goes into the matter in some detail: "I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority. God an Exalted Man I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. 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, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, 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. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. *** What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said." This varies slightly depending upon which version of the King Follet Discourse you accept. Some have him quoting John more precisely, which I accept, but this one is an almalgamation of them from https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng It doesn't get much clearer. Yeshua was once saved by His Father as his Savior in the office of the Son. The modern Church threw out this idea for an idea that Yeshua saved all worlds from this one. There is one quibble I have. We do not know from scripture what becomes of the Father or His office that is. Does He become grandfather? We are not told. As far as I know he remains the Father. Perhaps that is the highest priesthood office. My thinking is that it is. For Yeshua is never to return to corruption, and will be called the Eternal Father. That seems the end of His advancement.
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 13 minutes ago, RevTestament said: The King Follett discourse goes into the matter in some detail: "I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority. God an Exalted Man I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. 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, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, 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. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. *** What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said." This varies slightly depending upon which version of the King Follet Discourse you accept. Some have him quoting John more precisely, which I accept, but this one is an almalgamation of them from https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng It doesn't get much clearer. Yeshua was once saved by His Father as his Savior in the office of the Son. The modern Church threw out this idea for an idea that Yeshua saved all worlds from this one. There is one quibble I have. We do not know from scripture what becomes of the Father or His office that is. Does He become grandfather? We are not told. As far as I know he remains the Father. Perhaps that is the highest priesthood office. My thinking is that it is. For Yeshua is never to return to corruption, and will be called the Eternal Father. That seems the end of His advancement. Yes thanks, I am aware of that. Absolutely fascinating stuff! My opinion is that He becomes Grandfather, Great Grandfather etc. Someone was looking for a canonized source so I provided one. On the other hand, the character who speaks that line might be lying. There are other quotes then that might be affected by that if it is the case. But then that raises a lot of other questions about other sections, if you catch my drift. On the other hand Joseph confirms it in the statements you quoted above. Some think we have no canonized sources implying anything of the King Follett Discourse, but there are- most are implications and quite vague except for that one I quoted. I see no logical incompatibility with the idea of an infinite atonement and King Follet though- it would be possible for both to be the case.
RevTestament Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes thanks, I am aware of that. Absolutely fascinating stuff! My opinion is that He becomes Grandfather, Great Grandfather etc. Someone was looking for a canonized source so I provided one. On the other hand, the character who speaks that line might be lying. There are other quotes then that might be affected by that if it is the case. But then that raises a lot of other questions about other sections, if you catch my drift. On the other hand Joseph confirms it in the statements you quoted above. Some think we have no canonized sources implying anything of the King Follett Discourse, but there are- most are implications and quite vague except for that one I quoted. I see no logical incompatibility with the idea of an infinite atonement and King Follet though- it would be possible for both to be the case. Let me first say, we are dealing with the oracles of God here, so it is not something all receive. What I am saying is I don't believe the Church received it. The idea of an infinite atonement is subject to interpretation. Is it infinite in terms of covering each and every sin no matter how many committed on this earth? Or if I understand you, does it apply to all other worlds? I think this is addressed by the fact that this world had a beginning and has an end. Then God will create a new earth. The gospel applies to this earth. The idea that the atonement applies to other worlds with their own gospels seems foreign to me. It is not taught in the gospels. That doesn't mean that the Son does not save those worlds which is where I think the idea came from. It just means imho that the Father was once a Son, etc. Joseph Smith is teaching that Yeshua was once saved by His Father who laid down His life for HIm as His Savior, and thus, like the Son is called YHWH, Behold the nail, Behold the hand, the Father is called YHWH - They are both YHWH Elohim, see Gen 3:22. Thus, with the Savior, the Father can tell us He was pierced for us. John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in aproverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 30, 2017 Author Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Excellent example. This was the type of example that I had hoped to explore to explain in response to Scott's view, that in some cases there is plenty of ambiguity or lack of definition within Mormonism. So, it's possible the claim has some merit, depending on context. I never disputed that there were ambiguities and lack of clarity on some matters. My point in presenting Dan's blog post is that there is a great deal (he wrote out these 50 items as fast as he could type before growing weary of the activity and going to bed) on which there is unequivocal clarity.
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: Let me first say, we are dealing with the oracles of God here, so it is not something all receive. What I am saying is I don't believe the Church received it. The idea of an infinite atonement is subject to interpretation. Is it infinite in terms of covering each and every sin no matter how many committed on this earth? Or if I understand you, does it apply to all other worlds? I think this is addressed by the fact that this world had a beginning and has an end. Then God will create a new earth. The gospel applies to this earth. The idea that the atonement applies to other worlds with their own gospels seems foreign to me. It is not taught in the gospels. That doesn't mean that the Son does not save those worlds which is where I think the idea came from. It just means imho that the Father was once a Son, etc. Joseph Smith is teaching that Yeshua was once saved by His Father who laid down His life for HIm as His Savior, and thus, like the Son is called YHWH, Behold the nail, Behold the hand, the Father is called YHWH - They are both YHWH Elohim, see Gen 3:22. Thus, with the Savior, the Father can tell us He was pierced for us. John 16:25 These things have I spoken unto you in aproverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. Well since we are speculating, and want to apply science to religion which I never do, I can see how literalists could take theories about multiverses and apply them here so that each one exalted can create their own "universe" so that God is not limited to this planet or solar system. And I have seen comments by GA's to the effect of an infinite atonement for all worlds, and that atonement was on this earth, once for all. I honestly cannot find those quotes because frankly I usually dismiss them as pure speculation, and parables posing as science which ends up confusing everything and making this world 6000 years old because the Bible says so I see the world in terms of competing paradigms or "spheres" of knowledge per DC 93 and look for the lessons to be learned which I can apply in my life. I like to think that God is "omnipotent" which means he has power over everything that human beings can know about in principle. I don't see limiting the atonement as "omnipotence" in that sense, so my parable does not include that story- my parable/paradigm sees God as an exalted human who can do anything any human can in principle ever do no matter how exalted they are able to become. To me that would include all we can know about this universe or multiverse. That is how I handle the immanence / transcendence paradox. God transcends all we little embryos can understand but is still our Father who can have compassion on us individually. Another way to say that is that we cannot construct an idea of anything that God can do- by definition In effect that means that humans cannot even conceive of what God cannot in principle do, so limiting his power in any way becomes self-contradictory if we accept him as exalted and above our ability to even conceive or speak about in any way. Our paltry little brains cannot limit him- even if indeed in some sense he has limits, and so can be "immanent" But all of this is the philosophy of men of course. No philosophy can limit God, in my parable/paradigm Just google "lds one atonement for all worlds" and you will get skads of quotes Edit: see below Edited August 30, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 Infinite atonement Quote 6. The infinite Atonement affects worlds without number and will save all of God’s children except sons of perdition (see Alma 34:9–10, 12; D&C 76:22–24, 40–43). https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-9-the-atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
Recommended Posts