- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-Edited by cwald- cwald wrote:“It is clear that this doctrine is still taught today. (At least it was taught at the time this interview happened.) The first chapter of the current edition (1992) of the Latter-day Saint teaching manual, Gospel Principles (Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints,1992 ed., p. 9.), quotes from the above passage under the heading What Kind of Being Is God?:
“The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “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” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). God is a glorified and perfected man, a personage of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22″
I’ve never heard that quote used to support that god was once a fallible man. I’ve only ever heard it used to reiterate that man is created in god’s image, like another way to reinforce the teaching that god is
likeus, not some sort of omnipresent cloud or something. Maybe your focus is on the phrase “glorified and perfected,” where perfected implies an imperfect thing being made perfect. Still it’s an implication rather than a clear-cut claim. I don’t think people in the gospel principles class make that connection, I know when I was in that class I didn’t. The plan as it pertains to us strongly implies that god was once a fallible man. If we are to believe that we can become like god, creating spirit children and presenting a plan for those spirit children to progress and do likewise, then the natural question that is raised in all of this is: What about HF? Is that the process HF went through? It certainly fits well in the theology, it’s hard to ignore.
Old-Timer wrote:I simply want to address a couple of things from your comment that I think are really extreme, incorrect assertions and conclusions and which are factually incorrect:
Quote:I have noticed for many years that in comparison to protestant and particularly evangelical churches, the LDS church does not place as much emphasis on Christ.
While I understand your points I see that as a matter of opinion so it’s hard for me to see that issue as being “factually incorrect.” One direction or the other.
cwald wrote:this might be a good time to ban cwald from staylds.com because I’m probably not going to back down on this issue.
Don’t ban cwald! Staylds.com wouldn’t be the same without you. Seriously.
I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet that the very large majority of converts to the LDS Church in the past 30 years or so would say they were not taught actively that God once was a mortal – and certainly that it wasn’t emphasized. Again, he said “teach” and then immediately clarified by saying “emphasize”. My main point is that the use of the colloquialism “I don’t know that . . .” clouds the issue so much for those who didn’t grow up hearing it all the time that it’s difficult for them to understand what he actually meant by what he said. If English was his second language, people would be willing to consider alternative meanings, but colloquialisms aren’t as obvious. I understand that and really wish it wasn’t the case, since that perceptual foundation is the heart of the disagreement, IMO.
GBSmith wrote:…at some point in time I’ll decide that continued active participation for the sake of family won’t be worth it anymore.
I agree that to make staying work long term we all need to find our own reasons. I know that when a lot of members lose the exclusive authority perspective they can’t find anything else meaningful to hold onto. This pains me. I know everyone needs to find their own way but I have found so much more in the symbolism and community that holds deep meaning for me I can’t help but feel sad when others don’t find something similar for themselves.
I too hope cwald sticks around. I mean we all have to cool off from time to time, but I really love having your input, cwald. Like you, I’m older than some of these young whippersnappers and also was raised in a very academic ward. The manuals definitely used to be different in the types of lessons and discussions at least per my recollection. There was no doubt in my mind growing up that godhood was to be our exaltation and that God used to be a fallible, struggling human just like we are. That could have been partly local interpretation, partly the lesson manuals, partly what people believe, partly King Follett. But I do have a friend, nearly same age, grew up in a very conservative ward in the UK, and he would not say that he was taught that. There’s another distinction between what is meant by eternal progression. I take it to mean that we continue to learn and grow throughout eternity. My more conservative friend absolutely disagreed (and I think BY also would disagree with me). He would say God can’t learn anything any more. He’s omnipotent and ALWAYS has been. That to me sounds protestant, not Mormon. But BY’s claim on this matter was that it was a dynastic blessing: eternal “increase” meaning more and more offspring and wives. Obviously, that would be his interpretation. Given his number of wives and the dumbness of the deseret alphabet, that’s the direction he would go.
hawkgrrrl wrote:There was no doubt in my mind growing up that godhood was to be our exaltation and that God used to be a fallible, struggling human just like we are. That could have been partly local interpretation, partly the lesson manuals, partly what people believe, partly King Follett. But I do have a friend, nearly same age, grew up in a very conservative ward in the UK, and he would not say that he was taught that.
I had the impression in younger years that God the father was most likely a Christ of his mortality, so he would never have been a “struggling human” in the same way that we are, but he did live a human life yes.I also agree that eternal progression should be as you describe, and I think BY did agree with us (maybe even saying the end of learning would be hell), but Orson Pratt did not and I believe this was one of the hot points between him and BY. The twist of fate is BY’s views on this as well as a couple others did not survive with the majority.
Quote:I could be wrong, but I would be willing to bet that the very large majority of converts to the LDS Church in the past 30 years or so would say they were not taught actively that God once was a mortal – and certainly that it wasn’t emphasized.”.
I agree, but there are many things the church doesn’t “emphasize”, especially to new or prospective members. To name a few.
-Second Annointing
-Polygamy/polyandry
-Multiple first vision accounts
-BofM translation (true version)
etc. etc. etc. The list would be exceedingly long. The church distances itself from many controversial topics but that doesn’t mean the teaching doesn’t still exist.
I would love if someone could justify the need for the 2nd Annointing. I see no reason for it in the mortal life (unless Christ administers it personally), and it reeks of personal agrandizement. It’s not taught anywhere, in any official church publication I’ve ever seen. It is a gnostic, exclusive practice with no basis in doctrine that I’ve ever seen.
We keep on saying that the church is forty years behind. Well, when it comes to its unusual teachings it certainly is. It doesn’t seem to understand that much of the west has moved on from mainline Christianity, and that its beliefs are quite tame compared to post-1960s Oriental imports, recent NRMs etc.
Quote:I would love if someone could justify the need for the 2nd Anointing.
I don’t think anyone has tried, since it’s not positioned as a “need”. Just saying.
🙂 Again, I think almost everyone here would not cry at all if it was eliminated, and it’s pretty much irrelevant to us. I know a few people who have (all extremely good people, fwiw), but I’m not going to ask them about it. It means a lot to them, and I respect that, even if I don’t care about it myself.
hawkgrrrl wrote:… There’s another distinction between what is meant by eternal progression. I take it to mean that we continue to learn and grow throughout eternity. My more conservative friend absolutely disagreed (and I think BY also would disagree with me). He would say God can’t learn anything any more. He’s omnipotent and ALWAYS has been. That to me sounds protestant, not Mormon. But BY’s claim on this matter was that it was a dynastic blessing: eternal “increase” meaning more and more offspring and wives. Obviously, that would be his interpretation. Given his number of wives and the dumbness of the deseret alphabet, that’s the direction he would go.
I have a vague recollection that this is what got Gene England in trouble with BRMcC and JFS, i.e. does God progress. Can’t remember who came down on what side though.
GBSmith wrote:I have a vague recollection that this is what got Gene England in trouble with BRMcC and JFS, i.e. does God progress. Can’t remember who came down on what side though.
My guess is Gene England was on the side of learning through eternity. I just looked up the topic in “Conflict in the Quorum” and it was Orson Pratt that published the “protestant” idea that God knows everything from eternity to eternity. BY argued that if God knows something then it is defined – and the definition puts limits on eternity. BY fervently argued that eternity is truly boundless, thus even God could not possibly know every last detail of the eternal future.
Orson wrote:GBSmith wrote:I have a vague recollection that this is what got Gene England in trouble with BRMcC and JFS, i.e. does God progress. Can’t remember who came down on what side though.
My guess is Gene England was on the side of learning through eternity. I just looked up the topic in “Conflict in the Quorum” and it was Orson Pratt that published the “protestant” idea that God knows everything from eternity to eternity. BY argued that if God knows something then it is defined – and the definition puts limits on eternity. BY fervently argued that eternity is truly boundless, thus even God could not possibly know every last detail of the eternal future.
These are the kinds of “deeper” doctrine that I think are fun to think about (but not dwell on). If God really is omniscient, how could he not know the end from the beginning, even if there is no end or beginning as in eternity. We can really get ourselves running in circles, unless of course we decide God is really not omniscient. Even so, that would not preclude him from knowing the end from the beginning, etc.
BTW, I know this was mentioned earlier n this thread, but I was baptized in 1981, and while I wasn’t taught this by the missionaries (of course) I do recall being taught that God was once a mortal man like we are now and has progressed. I do realize this teaching is not common anymore, but it did make sense to me from an eternal progression point of view and still does. I actually don’t have a current opinion on the subject because I’ve decided it just doesn’t matter (like omniscience doesn’t matter), but I did once believe God was once a man and I could still buy that argument. When my son becomes a father, I will still be his father.
DarkJedi wrote:
These are the kinds of “deeper” doctrine that I think are fun to think about (but not dwell on). If God really is omniscient, how could he not know the end from the beginning, even if there is no end or beginning as in eternity. We can really get ourselves running in circles, unless of course we decide God is really not omniscient. Even so, that would not preclude him from knowing the end from the beginning, etc.Yes, circles are easy to come upon. That is why I think every statement must be referenced from within the sphere of which it originated, or is intended. I think every truth is relative to the sphere in which it resides. Even our common earthly usage of “infinite” or “eternity” is to be contained within the sphere of our comprehension (and extension by our acknowledging we can’t comprehend.) So to answer in short God is omniscient as far as we can know or imagine in our present state. If we say God is omniscient in His own sphere it would be as truthful or absurd as saying we can know everything of our present state. The reality of that statement of course rests on the boundaries we draw around “present state.”
I took a badly needed computer holiday and after skimming these responses I think I will need another. First and MOST IMPORTANT. I will not back down when it comes to the centrality of Faith in Christ as the core principle of the gospel and I think I should not let the immediate response and explanations of Bro. Ray (Aug 1) go unchallenged.
But first, I do appreciate that Bro. Ray is the person responsible for what ultimately is allowed to be discussed and that he has the responsibility to delete anything that he thinks has gone too far in order to preserve the mission and tone of the discussion. The level of excellence of most of this blog speaks to the skill with which he has done this. It is your blog and I am as a guest in your home. Delete as you find necessary and without remorse. I only hope and pray that the other Bro. R. does not run again and get ahead and his opponents provide the reference on a hostile national forum that I did not in the deleted material.
Some personal background: For nearly 30 years I have been married (originally in the SLC temple) to an evangelical Christian. The last half decade I have attended LDS and evangelical meetings every week (I am not working) one right after the other and many other times during the previous years of chaos associated with raising children. Comparisons are impossible not to make. In my experience a person who does this long enough to get past the superficial surface differences and gets to know the hearts and souls of the members in both traditions; they cannot rationally accept that we somehow exceed the devotion of evangelicals to this core principle. This is their strong suit. We can attack the trinity or biblical inerrancy or divisiveness or infant baptism or any number of differences, but this one is not going to work.
I realize that different people have different perspectives and see things differently. What sounds like flimsy excuses to me might seem to be well reasoned arguments to Bro. Ray. But many of his explanations and comparisons of evangelical Christians are simply wrong. The evangelicals would not agree with these characterizations of their beliefs. Especially the lack of comprehension of the very subtle differences between salvation by grace in the two traditions. This becomes the paper tiger logical fallacy. If you have much substantial interaction with evangelicals and are drawing these conclusions based on first hand experiences, then we are not talking about the same group of people.
Evangelicals do not believe in easy salvation with a one sentence prayer. That is a gross misrepresentation of them. When you offer that as a parallel to the 2A you essentially make my case. The 2A is as bad as the mischaracterized beliefs that many Mormons hold as evangelical beliefs. Some of these mischaracterizations of evangelical beliefs are naïve canards that float around many LDS wards. You probably know the wag: can you learn what Chinese food tastes like in a Mexican restaurant?
Most nonsensical is the argument that we emphasis God as much as anyone. So what. Like what church doesn’t emphasis their God? Whatever they talk about is their God. Even the Unitarian First Church of the Church Picnic, which only plans and holds picnics for their members, talks as much about their God, the picnic as anyone else. The problem for evangelical and Mormon alike is that mere picnics, while vaguely reminiscent of some of the best of Christ’s teachings are not Christ and will not enlarge the soul; whether they enlarge the waistline or not. This to me is another clear logical fallacy.
Aside from a quagmire of the differences of our opinions and logic, one might also ask the opinions of naïve visitors to the religious services of each. Truth by democracy. When I do missionary work and invite friends (either evangelicals or not) to visit us, they experience the appalling lack of focus on Christ and it is the central reason that they do not give further consideration to us. Actually it is worse than that. It is like every week my wife and I play the game; whose service will be the most Christ-centered this week? I almost always lose and often embarrassingly. And to add insult to injury, my bishop agrees that our services are not as Christ centered as they should be. Then for one week our ward does better than average and he comes up to my wife and asks why she doesn’t come back. Look we did pretty good this week. The contest for the souls of the children of men is not won after one week but over lifetimes and centuries.
My wife and I agree on this subject. The main difference between us is that she sees no hope of reform in the LDS church and I am still trying although my efforts have been ineffective, misguided, often weak and feeble. I do not accept your perspective; my wife does not and will never return to the LDS faith to the degree that your views continue to prevail. My bishop and many other LDS friends do not accept your perception and none of the many friends who might be converted to our denomination accept it after variable amounts of investigation. The only people I know who do accept some permutation of your views, (that we are Christ-centered enough but in a different way) are the members of my ward and my extended family who don’t want to change and don’t want to engage evangelicals. So even if you are ultimately proven right you are not useful to me and push me towards my wife and away from the LDS faith. Continue to preach to the choir but don’t ask me to hold the back door closed on them when they leave.
May years ago when my wife and I were younger, filled with zeal and energy and both on the same page of trying to make our ward more Christ-centered, we developed a little grading system for testimonies, talks, sermons, lessons, etc. A way to perhaps measure what worked and what did not.
Grade I- No mention of Christ except ritualistically at the end. “In the name of …”
Grade 2- Passing mention of Christ but not centrally related to the topic. (Christ on the third row.)
Grade 3- A substantial portion devoted to Christ as center to our religious life.
Grade 4- Most if not all devoted unmistakably to Christ.
Grade 5- Christ-centered and life-changing, very rare.
We did not expect everything to be Grade 3 or 4. But it was astonishing how close to Grade 2 we hovered. (I would grade my blog comments here as Grade 3 to 3.5). We easily explained this system to other friends in the ward and often achieved substantial consistency over many meetings, even if we did not agree on specific events. And the very act of getting other people to measure Christ centeredness in the content of LDS meetings tended to elevate it. I challenge you to honestly apply this system or some variation objectively to the next fast and testimony meeting you attend. As a start.
The more pressing topic remains unaddressed. Explain how the 2A does not run counter to faith and repentance. Core Christ centered beliefs. (Maybe you did, I didn’t read everything). Explain why 2A is not just an archaic pioneer belief in need of being abandoned like the game of horseshoes as the preferred recreation of many pioneer leaders. Explain to me how 2A demonstrates the centrality of Christ while displacing the need for His atoning work. This seems pretty basic to me. Sin, estrangement from God and reconciliation through a change of heart and lifelong attempts of improvement of behavior. Explain the 2A and what it speaks to the Laws of Justice and Mercy.
The connection between LDS problems with Christ–centeredness and the 2A is a logical leap, but one I wish I did not feel compelled to make after many years of consideration. If church leaders want me to follow them in religious matters, then they need to unequivocally follow Christ. This 2A business is a major distraction for me and probably many others. It needs to go. No excuses.
Cwald , in my limited exposure to this blog you have far more to offer than I. Don’t leave because of a pot I stirred.
Thank you for your consideration and kindness.
Quote:The more pressing topic remains unaddressed. Explain how the 2A does not run counter to faith and repentance. Core Christ centered beliefs. (Maybe you did, I didn’t read everything). Explain why 2A is not just an archaic pioneer belief in need of being abandoned like the game of horseshoes as the preferred recreation of many pioneer leaders. Explain to me how 2A demonstrates the centrality of Christ while displacing the need for His atoning work. This seems pretty basic to me. Sin, estrangement from God and reconciliation through a change of heart and lifelong attempts of improvement of behavior. Explain the 2A and what it speaks to the Laws of Justice and Mercy.
The connection between LDS problems with Christ–centeredness and the 2A is a logical leap, but one I wish I did not feel compelled to make after many years of consideration. If church leaders want me to follow them in religious matters, then they need to unequivocally follow Christ. This 2A business is a major distraction for me and probably many others. It needs to go. No excuses.
Agreed. I started this topic supposing that someone may have a deeper understanding about why the 2A has value and shouldn’t be viewed as a major problem. I haven’t seen anyone express that. The consensus I’ve seen is that the 2A is presumptuous at least and replaces the need for Christ at worst. I see no value here except for those rare few who feel good about having their salvation guaranteed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.