Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a continuation of an off-topic discussion from another thread.
Note that this is not a thread for Mormon bashing. Please keep discussion civil.
It is to reconcile some apparent differences in the tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints discussing:
(a) How this divergence originated.
(b) Whether there is any value in trying to unify the two belief sets.
The differences summarized:
(1) There is a public face to the religious movement describing a doctrine that has some semblance to orthodox Christianity, but with important differences. For example, a "Godhead" of three discrete beings instead of a Tri-unity of three different persons as one being. Belief that Jesus is eternal and uncreated.
(2) There is documentary evidence of contrasting views held by LDS leaders, such as Apostle Bruce R McConkie in his work "The Mormon Doctrine". Which advocated beliefs such as God the Father residing on Planet Kobol as a corporeal being, exalted "gods and goddesses" producing "spirit children", the idea that Jesus was "spiritually born" to the Father prior to being incarnated here on earth.
The public line is that core doctrine is based only around specific texts: The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Views on McConkie's text seem to differ among Mormon users on this forum, one rejecting it and another defending it as a standard authority. Therefore, I think it may be worth discussing this matter in more detail.
What history on McConkie's text I could find: "The Mormon Doctrine" received some criticism from other apostles because of its "harsh tone" and "errors". It was edited under the direction of Spencer Kimball, LDS President from 1972-1973, but even in the revised version, it seems that themes such as the residence upon Kobol, spirit birth of Christ, spirit children and so on remain.
Again, please be respectful and keep the discussion civil.
This is a continuation of an off-topic discussion from another thread.
Note that this is not a thread for Mormon bashing. Please keep discussion civil.
It is to reconcile some apparent differences in the tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints discussing:
(a) How this divergence originated.
(b) Whether there is any value in trying to unify the two belief sets.
The differences summarized:
(1) There is a public face to the religious movement describing a doctrine that has some semblance to orthodox Christianity, but with important differences. For example, a "Godhead" of three discrete beings instead of a Tri-unity of three different persons as one being. Belief that Jesus is eternal and uncreated.
(2) There is documentary evidence of contrasting views held by LDS leaders, such as Apostle Bruce R McConkie in his work "The Mormon Doctrine". Which advocated beliefs such as God the Father residing on Planet Kobol as a corporeal being, exalted "gods and goddesses" producing "spirit children", the idea that Jesus was "spiritually born" to the Father prior to being incarnated here on earth.
The public line is that core doctrine is based only around specific texts: The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Views on McConkie's text seem to differ among Mormon users on this forum, one rejecting it and another defending it as a standard authority. Therefore, I think it may be worth discussing this matter in more detail.
What history on McConkie's text I could find: "The Mormon Doctrine" received some criticism from other apostles because of its "harsh tone" and "errors". It was edited under the direction of Spencer Kimball, LDS President from 1972-1973, but even in the revised version, it seems that themes such as the residence upon Kobol, spirit birth of Christ, spirit children and so on remain.
Again, please be respectful and keep the discussion civil.
Let me begin by posting a link: Approaching Mormon Doctrine. This link is to an official statement made by the leadership of the LDS Church that is part of the Church's official website. It's not a particularly long statement, but it is evidentally too long to be posted in its entirety on the forums (as I learned for myself when I attempted to do it once before ). I'm going to cut and paste a few sentences from it. Please do not assume that I am intentionally leaving anything out, because I'm not. It's simply necessary for me to shorten the quoted portion to conform to forum rules. Please feel free to the complete statement if you're interested.
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine [nor is it] meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration... the Prophet [i.e. the President of the Church] and his two counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles... 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.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
LDS Apostles, such as Bruce R. McConkie (who died some years ago) occasionally author books containing their thoughts on various Mormon doctrines. Some are more prolific writers than others. McConkie, in writing his book "Gospel Doctrine," undertook an immense project. He did so, however, apparently unbeknownst to the President of the Church at that time, David O. McKay. I have never read the book from cover to cover. I have read enough excerpts from it, however, to be able to spot the instances in which his own personal interpretation and understanding of the scriptures were something of an "embellishment" to the scriptures themselves. That is not to say that there are not parts of the book that contain worthwhile information. It is to say, however, that the book has never been a part of the LDS curriculum, nor has it ever been considered to be even close to the level of scripture in terms of reliability. There are certain parts of the book which even McConkie himself later admitted were wrong. For instance, with respect to his comments on Black members of the Church, "Forget what I said...in past days..." were his exact words. Well, people don't forget.
We believe that a living prophet stands at the head of our Church today (as has been the case since Joseph Smith founded the Church in 1830, and as will be the case as long as the Church exists). Most of the doctrines of the Church were revealed to Joseph Smith. He was murdered in 1843, however, and new doctrines continued to be revealed to Brigham Young and his successors. Here is the process by which something becomes doctrinally binding upon the members of the Church. Should God wish to reveal something to the Church as a whole today, He would do so through the President of the Church (i.e. the Prophet), Thomas S. Monson. He wouldn't go through some bishop; He wouldn't go through Mitt Romney or Harry Reid; He wouldn't even go through one of the twelve men who have been called as Apostles (such as McConkie was at one time). Once President Monson had received a revelation from God, he would meet with his two counselors and with the Quorum of the Twelve and tell them of this revelation. All fourteen of these men would then pray, probably collectively and individually about what he'd said. Very likely they would also fast for a period of time in conjunction with their prayers. When they next met together, all fourteen would have to witness that they had received confirmation through the Holy Ghost that this was not just President Monson talking, but the Lord communicating through him. When all fifteen of these individuals together confirmed that they were all in agreement as to this new doctrine, it would be presented to the membership of the Church and would be added to add subsequent editions of The Doctrine and Covenants. (This, incidentally, has happened only once in my lifetime.)
If any individual member of the Quorum of the Twelve (i.e. the Apostles) went to the President of the Church saying he had received new revelation on behalf of the Church that he (the Apostle) was to convey to him (the President), red flags would go up. This is not how it works. Ever. Whenever any of our leaders speak or write, we as members are to recognize that they are explaining official doctrine as they understand it. If we have any doubts whatsoever about anything they say or write, we are to judge their words against what is written in the Standard Works (the four volumes of scripture named earlier).
I'm assuming you still want information about the specifics of what you asked for in "differences summarized" paragraph. I'll get to that, but I felt that this preliminary information was very important if you are to understand my subsequent comments.
(1) There is a public face to the religious movement describing a doctrine that has some semblance to orthodox Christianity, but with important differences. For example, a "Godhead" of three discrete beings instead of a Tri-unity of three different persons as one being. Belief that Jesus is eternal and uncreated.
Here's what I wrote about the LDS understanding of the Godhead on another forum I participate on. I apologize again for being wordy. I'm really just trying to be thorough:
Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.
We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).
The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.
Most Christians also use the words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.
The third member of the Godhead is the Holy Ghost. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit only. It is by virtue of this quality that He is able to both fill the universe and dwell in our hearts. It is through the Holy Ghost that God communicates to mankind. We come to understand spiritual truths through the witnessing of the Holy Ghost, who communicates with us on a spiritual plane. It is through Him that we come to know the Father and the Son.
Quote:
(2) There is documentary evidence of contrasting views held by LDS leaders, such as Apostle Bruce R McConkie in his work "The Mormon Doctrine". Which advocated beliefs such as God the Father residing on Planet Kobol as a corporeal being, exalted "gods and goddesses" producing "spirit children", the idea that Jesus was "spiritually born" to the Father prior to being incarnated here on earth.
I can't help but wonder if you're in IT? The word is "Kolob," not "Kobol."
Here's what we believe: There is a God. He lives in Heaven. Heaven is a real place, although we do not claim to know where it is. Of the billions of stars in the sky, one of them is closer to where God is than all the rest. That star (not planet) has a name by which God refers to it in our sacred volume of scripture, "The Pearl of Great Price." He calls it "Kolob." I realize that most of the world's Christians believe that God doesn't actually reside anywhere, but instead fills the universe. That, unfortunately is not what the Bible says. The Bible consistently refers to God as being "in Heaven" and Mormon doctrine is consistent with that. I am 66 years old and have been a Mormon my entire life. I believe that I understand LDS theology well. Do you know how many times in 66 years I have heard Kolob spoken of in an LDS worship service? Exactly zero. In my prior post, I quoted the LDS Church leadership as saying, "Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines." The belief that Heaven is near a star known to God as Kolob is one of those doctrines that I might describe as having miniscule importance.
Now, about Jesus' status prior to His birth... I really want to make this understandable without going into any more detail that I absolutely have to in order to not leave anything important out. I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not able to do that as well as I'd like. Unlike other Christians, we believe that all of us (every human being who has ever lived or ever will live) had our beginning in God's presence. Unless I'm mistaken, most Christians believe that only Jesus had a pre-mortal life and that the rest of us began to exist either at the moment of conception or at birth or at some point in between. We believe that God the Father created a spirit (sometimes spoken of in Mormonism as a spirit body) for each and every one of us, using a highly refined substance that we think of as being "the light of truth," which was co-eternal with Him. These spirits (or spirit bodies) are the very essence of our being. They do not have flesh and bones; they are spirit only. We have absolutely no idea by what process God took the "light of truth" and from it, created spirits, but we do believe it happened. The Bible refers to God as "the Father of spirits."
As to whether Jesus Christ is "eternal and uncreated" or was "spiritually born" at some point, to me the answer to that question hinges on how we understand time as it applies to God. People speak of God as being "outside of time." I'm not 100% sure what they mean by that. All Christians do seem to agree, though, that God created our universe and that there was a time before our universe was created. In other words, when we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "the beginning" refers to the beginning of our universe. It refers to the moment at which "the clock started ticking," so to speak. The Bible also tells us that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So we know that Jesus was with God and was Himself "God" at that point. There has never been a time since sometime "before the beginning" that Jesus hasn't existed, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that He was created or "spiritually born" prior to "the beginning." Earlier in this post, I already explained how we see Jesus Christ as being unique among all of God's children. I hope that part is not at all in question.
Finally, we do believe that God has a female counterpart. We refer to God the Father as "our Father in Heaven" and to her as "our Mother in Heaven." LDS revelation on the subject of our Mother in Heaven is almost non-existent, and we have been advised not to speculate too much about things that really aren't important to our salvation. I find the idea of a divine feminine to be beautiful, but like other Mormons, I don't give it much thought really. We don't pray to our Mother in Heaven or really even talk about her; perhaps if we're ever given any more information about her, that will change. So yes, I suppose you could say that we believe in a God and a Goddess.
I hope I've covered everything you wanted to know about those particular issues.
Quote:
It is to reconcile some apparent differences in the tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints discussing:
(a) How this divergence originated.
(b) Whether there is any value in trying to unify the two belief sets.
The differences are primarily that one "belief set" is simply a simplified version of the other. McConkie may have been more imaginative than others in his calling would have been, that's all. Sometimes he may have overstepped his bounds. As I've said before, I'm definitely not a fan of his.
Quote:
The public line is that core doctrine is based only around specific texts: The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Views on McConkie's text seem to differ among Mormon users on this forum, one rejecting it and another defending it as a standard authority. Therefore, I think it may be worth discussing this matter in more detail.
Okay, well at this point I just want to know who the other Mormons on the forum are, as I seem to be pretty much a team of one.
This is a continuation of an off-topic discussion from another thread.
Note that this is not a thread for Mormon bashing. Please keep discussion civil.
It is to reconcile some apparent differences in the tenets of the Church of Latter Day Saints discussing:
(a) How this divergence originated.
(b) Whether there is any value in trying to unify the two belief sets.
The differences summarized:
(1) There is a public face to the religious movement describing a doctrine that has some semblance to orthodox Christianity, but with important differences. For example, a "Godhead" of three discrete beings instead of a Tri-unity of three different persons as one being. Belief that Jesus is eternal and uncreated.
There is no Mormon notion of any kind of three persons within one being. The Mormon notion of Godhead is that three beings hold what you might call the office of the Godhead. The Nicene doctrine developed a notion of separate hypostases inhabiting one being, but Latter-day Saint doctrine asserts three separate beings united in perfection, will, and glory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff
(2) There is documentary evidence of contrasting views held by LDS leaders, such as Apostle Bruce R McConkie in his work "The Mormon Doctrine". Which advocated beliefs such as God the Father residing on Planet Kobol as a corporeal being, exalted "gods and goddesses" producing "spirit children", the idea that Jesus was "spiritually born" to the Father prior to being incarnated here on earth.
The public line is that core doctrine is based only around specific texts: The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Views on McConkie's text seem to differ among Mormon users on this forum, one rejecting it and another defending it as a standard authority. Therefore, I think it may be worth discussing this matter in more detail.
What history on McConkie's text I could find: "The Mormon Doctrine" received some criticism from other apostles because of its "harsh tone" and "errors". It was edited under the direction of Spencer Kimball, LDS President from 1972-1973, but even in the revised version, it seems that themes such as the residence upon Kobol, spirit birth of Christ, spirit children and so on remain.
Again, please be respectful and keep the discussion civil.
First, it's Kolob, not Kobol. Next, it wasn't a planet, it is described as the star nearest to the throne of God. Lastly, I would take issue with the notion that McConkie's text has any bearing whatsoever on Mormon doctrine. It was certainly held up as authoritative in some circles, but it promulgated nothing other than a few folk doctrines that aren't that prevalent these days.
There is no Mormon notion of any kind of three persons within one being. The Mormon notion of Godhead is that three beings hold what you might call the office of the Godhead. The Nicene doctrine developed a notion of separate hypostases inhabiting one being, but Latter-day Saint doctrine asserts three separate beings united in perfection, will, and glory.
First, it's Kolob, not Kobol. Next, it wasn't a planet, it is described as the star nearest to the throne of God. Lastly, I would take issue with the notion that McConkie's text has any bearing whatsoever on Mormon doctrine. It was certainly held up as authoritative in some circles, but it promulgated nothing other than a few folk doctrines that aren't that prevalent these days.
Man, you sure did say that in a lot fewer words than it took me! I admit it was nice to see how well your short and sweet version complemented my lengthy one.
Hi, I was passionately devout LDS for 20 years. Instead of "discrete" perhaps you mean "distinct."
20 years. Now free from the cognitive dissonance.
Hi thanks for your input. I'm glad you found happiness and a new walk of life. What circumstances made you change?
A minor point, but discrete does mean distinct. Maybe you're confusing it with discreet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
There is no Mormon notion of any kind of three persons within one being. The Mormon notion of Godhead is that three beings hold what you might call the office of the Godhead. The Nicene doctrine developed a notion of separate hypostases inhabiting one being, but Latter-day Saint doctrine asserts three separate beings united in perfection, will, and glory.
First, it's Kolob, not Kobol. Next, it wasn't a planet, it is described as the star nearest to the throne of God. Lastly, I would take issue with the notion that McConkie's text has any bearing whatsoever on Mormon doctrine. It was certainly held up as authoritative in some circles, but it promulgated nothing other than a few folk doctrines that aren't that prevalent these days.
I never implied that Mormons believe in the Trinity. My paragraph on their first set of beliefs distinguishes Godhead from Trinitarianism. It contrasts the two.
There seems to be some contention about whether Kolob is a star or planet. I only have wikipedia to go by on this rather than a copy of the Pearl of Great Price, but it claims that the Book of Abraham often describes stars as planets, therefore some Mormon commentators claim it is an habitable planet.
Here's what I wrote about the LDS understanding of the Godhead on another forum I participate on. I apologize again for being wordy. I'm really just trying to be thorough:
Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself. He was with His Father in the beginning. Under His Father's direction, He created worlds without number. He was chosen to be "the Lamb" prior to the foundation of this world. He sits today on the right hand of His Father. Along with the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son make up the Godhead.
We believe that our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ have a true father-son relationship. The words, "Father" and "Son," in other words, mean exactly what they say. They are not metaphorical or symbolic of a vague metaphysical relationship, in which two beings are some how both part of a single essence. We are each the physical sons and daughters of our mortal parents. Jesus Christ is the literal, physical Son of a divine Father and a mortal Mother. He was conceived in a miraculous way, but like all sons, was in the "express image of His Father's person." That is to say, He looked like Him. Dogs beget puppies, and cats beget kittens. God beget a Son who is the same species as He is. They both have bodies of flesh and bone (although, until His birth in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ was a spirit being only).
The Father and the Son are physically distinct from one another, and yet they are also "one." This doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible. We just understand the word "one" to mean something other than physical substance or essence. We believe they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart, and one in power and glory." It would be impossible to explain, or even to understand, the degree of their unity. It is perfect; it is absolute. They think, feel and act as "one God." Because of this perfect unity, and because they share the title of "God," we think of them together in this way. It would be impossible for us to worship one of them without also worshipping the other.
Most Christians also use the words “co-equal” and “co-eternal” to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not. We believe that, as is again the case with all fathers and sons, the Father existed prior to His Son. No son's existence precedes his father's, and Jesus Christ is no exception to this rule. We also believe Christ to be subordinate to His Father. He is divine because of His relationship with His Father. It is, however, important to understand what we mean when we use the word "subordinate." We understand that the Son holds a subordinate position in the relationship; we do not believe Him to be an inferior being. As an example, a colonel holds an inferior position to a general, but is not an inferior being. To most people's way of thinking, an ant, however, is an inferior being to a human.
The third member of the Godhead is the Holy Ghost. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost is a person of spirit only. It is by virtue of this quality that He is able to both fill the universe and dwell in our hearts. It is through the Holy Ghost that God communicates to mankind. We come to understand spiritual truths through the witnessing of the Holy Ghost, who communicates with us on a spiritual plane. It is through Him that we come to know the Father and the Son.
I can't help but wonder if you're in IT? The word is "Kolob," not "Kobol."
Here's what we believe: There is a God. He lives in Heaven. Heaven is a real place, although we do not claim to know where it is. Of the billions of stars in the sky, one of them is closer to where God is than all the rest. That star (not planet) has a name by which God refers to it in our sacred volume of scripture, "The Pearl of Great Price." He calls it "Kolob." I realize that most of the world's Christians believe that God doesn't actually reside anywhere, but instead fills the universe. That, unfortunately is not what the Bible says. The Bible consistently refers to God as being "in Heaven" and Mormon doctrine is consistent with that. I am 66 years old and have been a Mormon my entire life. I believe that I understand LDS theology well. Do you know how many times in 66 years I have heard Kolob spoken of in an LDS worship service? Exactly zero. In my prior post, I quoted the LDS Church leadership as saying, "Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines." The belief that Heaven is near a star known to God as Kolob is one of those doctrines that I might describe as having miniscule importance.
Now, about Jesus' status prior to His birth... I really want to make this understandable without going into any more detail that I absolutely have to in order to not leave anything important out. I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not able to do that as well as I'd like. Unlike other Christians, we believe that all of us (every human being who has ever lived or ever will live) had our beginning in God's presence. Unless I'm mistaken, most Christians believe that only Jesus had a pre-mortal life and that the rest of us began to exist either at the moment of conception or at birth or at some point in between. We believe that God the Father created a spirit (sometimes spoken of in Mormonism as a spirit body) for each and every one of us, using a highly refined substance that we think of as being "the light of truth," which was co-eternal with Him. These spirits (or spirit bodies) are the very essence of our being. They do not have flesh and bones; they are spirit only. We have absolutely no idea by what process God took the "light of truth" and from it, created spirits, but we do believe it happened. The Bible refers to God as "the Father of spirits."
As to whether Jesus Christ is "eternal and uncreated" or was "spiritually born" at some point, to me the answer to that question hinges on how we understand time as it applies to God. People speak of God as being "outside of time." I'm not 100% sure what they mean by that. All Christians do seem to agree, though, that God created our universe and that there was a time before our universe was created. In other words, when we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "the beginning" refers to the beginning of our universe. It refers to the moment at which "the clock started ticking," so to speak. The Bible also tells us that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So we know that Jesus was with God and was Himself "God" at that point. There has never been a time since sometime "before the beginning" that Jesus hasn't existed, but this doesn't preclude the possibility that He was created or "spiritually born" prior to "the beginning." Earlier in this post, I already explained how we see Jesus Christ as being unique among all of God's children. I hope that part is not at all in question.
Finally, we do believe that God has a female counterpart. We refer to God the Father as "our Father in Heaven" and to her as "our Mother in Heaven." LDS revelation on the subject of our Mother in Heaven is almost non-existent, and we have been advised not to speculate too much about things that really aren't important to our salvation. I find the idea of a divine feminine to be beautiful, but like other Mormons, I don't give it much thought really. We don't pray to our Mother in Heaven or really even talk about her; perhaps if we're ever given any more information about her, that will change. So yes, I suppose you could say that we believe in a God and a Goddess.
I hope I've covered everything you wanted to know about those particular issues.
The differences are primarily that one "belief set" is simply a simplified version of the other. McConkie may have been more imaginative than others in his calling would have been, that's all. Sometimes he may have overstepped his bounds. As I've said before, I'm definitely not a fan of his.
Okay, well at this point I just want to know who the other Mormons on the forum are, as I seem to be pretty much a team of one.
General Christian theology is not that God "fills the universe" or occupies every point in space at the same time (which sounds like a type of panentheism) but that he is beyond time and space, therefore immaterial, timeless and spaceless.
Which brings me to the other point. Even if Jesus had been spiritually born outside of time, it may reconcile the notion of an eternal Jesus with his spirit birth, but it still means that he is a created being. For clarification, are you saying that in your official doctrine Jesus is a created being?
2, Katzpur, you say concering the LDS beliefs, “Our first Article of Faith states: We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. While we believe that God is the Father of the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived, and that we are all His spirit offspring, Jesus Christ is most definitely in a class by Himself”. post #5, speaking of their beliefs.. fine, and our topic, “reconciling two apparent tiers of belief“. based on what is said about our Lord Jesus in flesh, we can reconcile this quickly. 1 Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords now listen closely, 16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen”.
now if Jesus the Christ is the “ONLY ONE” who have IMMORTALITY, and many say he is the Son, the where do that leave the Father?, meaning if he, JESUS is the “ONLY” one with IMMORATALITY?. now this will reconcile all.
peace
and please my educated professional do answer also, (smile).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I'm going to cut and paste a few sentences from it. Please do not assume that I am intentionally leaving anything out, because I'm not. It's simply necessary for me to shorten the quoted portion to conform to forum rules. Please feel free to the complete statement if you're interested.
The word is "Kolob," not "Kobol." 