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.
Mormon doctrine is that which is contained in the books of our canon and in special proclamations and declarations, not second or third hand reports of what prophets may or may not have said or intended to convey at some meeting in the distant past. Mormon doctrine says nothing about our Father in Heaven having sexual relations. But to me personally, it makes sense that our families here would be similar to our families in the heavens.
The problem is that Mormon doctrine is so different from Mormon teaching that they are frequently at odds. It's interesting to me, and in all honesty it appears disingenuous to me, that the mormon religion keeps records of the teachings of its prophets and uses them for teaching, but then will backpedal and say that none of those teachings are actual doctrine because they are not scripture from any of the mormon canons.
A good example is that mormon doctrine, from the Pearl of Great Price, says that mormons are not to drink "hot drinks". Mormon teachings, however, which are not in the scripture, interpret "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea. In practice, mormons will refuse coffee and tea and some even refuse soda due to the caffeine in it.
The other problem is that the men teaching these things are often considered "prophets". But if they are prophets, then what they teach is either of God or not of God. And if someone claims to be a prophet speaking things of God, but then is wrong, that person is a false prophet. So there is a credibility problem brought about by the teachings of mormon "prophets". In being wrong and/or non-doctrinal in any teachings they show themselves to be false prophets.
I think you are incorrect. People who actually study the Bible with an open mind and don't restrict themselves to the limited theology taught by the scholars and leaders of the denomination they choose to affiliate with know better.
Interesting thing to say, because I know that my Church's leaders DO "study the Bible with an open mind and don't restrict themselves to the limited theology taught by the scholars and leaders of the denomination they choose to affiliate with know better." They study and accept many of the views of Catholics and various Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Yet, they still know that there are no degrees of heaven.
With the mormon religion, this is not the case. Mormons don't study theology taught by Catholics, Protestants, and any other Christians, nor do they accept or agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Latter-day revelation confirms the teaching of the Bible on these matters and verifies that there are three general categories or glories to which the members of the human family will be assigned in the judgment following their resurrection from the grave. These are known as the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms, of which the sun, moon, and stars are spoken of as being typical.
"In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14: 2
"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven." 2 Corinthians 12: 2
"There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." 1 Corinthians 15: 40-41
It is only through "latter-day revelation" and the extraneous mormon scriptures that anything in the Bible can be logically read to suggest or identify various "levels" of heaven. The verses you provide (out of context, again) do no such thing except when read in light of mormon scriptures/revelation, and even then the connection is tenuous at best.
The problem is that Mormon doctrine is so different from Mormon teaching that they are frequently at odds. It's interesting to me, and in all honesty it appears disingenuous to me, that the mormon religion keeps records of the teachings of its prophets and uses them for teaching, but then will backpedal and say that none of those teachings are actual doctrine because they are not scripture from any of the mormon canons.
A good example is that mormon doctrine, from the Pearl of Great Price, says that mormons are not to drink "hot drinks". Mormon teachings, however, which are not in the scripture, interpret "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea. In practice, mormons will refuse coffee and tea and some even refuse soda due to the caffeine in it.
The other problem is that the men teaching these things are often considered "prophets". But if they are prophets, then what they teach is either of God or not of God. And if someone claims to be a prophet speaking things of God, but then is wrong, that person is a false prophet. So there is a credibility problem brought about by the teachings of mormon "prophets". In being wrong and/or non-doctrinal in any teachings they show themselves to be false prophets.
What established church has not evolved and adapted procedures to then current circumstances over the centuries? The Catholic mass today for example is almost unrecognizable compared to the rigid priest and choir only Latin mass older Catholics were accustomed to.
I respect your right to believe that every word spoken by authorized prophets of God is revelation directly from God and thus infallible and binding upon His children forever. Personally, I believe no such thing has ever been among any of the prophets. Even the Lord himself, though he was perfect and never sinned, grew from childhood in wisdom and stature line upon line, precept on precept. Do you think Moses, Noah, Abraham etc. for example were always right when they offered their opinion about things such as what the weather would be like the next week, or when the second coming of Jesus Christ might take place?
Interesting thing to say, because I know that my Church's leaders DO "study the Bible with an open mind and don't restrict themselves to the limited theology taught by the scholars and leaders of the denomination they choose to affiliate with know better." They study and accept many of the views of Catholics and various Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Yet, they still know that there are no degrees of heaven.
With the mormon religion, this is not the case. Mormons don't study theology taught by Catholics, Protestants, and any other Christians, nor do they accept or agree with it.
Your church's leaders do not KNOW that there are no mansions or degrees of heaven because they have not recently been there to find out for yourselves! But assuming you know them and their thinking and are reporting it correctly they have quite possibly concluded from their scholarly studies of the bible and the writings of other scholars that in their opinion there is only one heaven and one hell.
Mormons are interested in TRUTH. We believe that there is much truth to be found in all religious denominations. And we study the bible with an open mind as well. But it's true that we see from a broader context, having additional scriptures written by prophets and writers just as qualified as those who wrote the books of the bible, and having amongst us a living prophet and apostles, as it was anciently.
But it's true that we don't normally spend time in Sunday meetings studying the beliefs of other religious denominations. LDS scholars and any individual member who is interested would be encouraged to study the beliefs of other denominations. I'm sure that there are many who do, and who do it just as well as the scholars and leaders of your specific denomination.
It is only through "latter-day revelation" and the extraneous mormon scriptures that anything in the Bible can be logically read to suggest or identify various "levels" of heaven. The verses you provide (out of context, again) do no such thing except when read in light of mormon scriptures/revelation, and even then the connection is tenuous at best.
Ok, that's what you believe. But please explain to me then if I always (according to you) take bible verses "out of context" and you don't why it is clearly written in the New Testament that there are "many mansions" in heaven, and a "third heaven" is spoken of.
"In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14: 2
"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven." 2 Corinthians 12: 2
It's always kinda baffled me how those who believe in God would believe He would just leave us alone today with no Prophet to guide us as in Biblical times. I mean I know many people's arguement is that the Bible is enough to guide us and yes it is an excellent guide but really in today's world we are bombarded by Satan's temptation and it only makes sense to me that we would need modern day prophets to guide us in these difficult times. And for those who do not believe in modern day prophets and say that they are only men well how do you reconcile your belief in this man made niecene (or however its spelled) creed that's completely and self admittedly man made??
P.S Katzpur and Justamere, you are doing a wonderful job in explaining are faith and unfortunately I think Johnny is just going to believe what he wants no matter how hard anyone tries. I admire you for your extreme patience and desire in wanting to share the gospel of Christ. God Bless!
So when Heavenly Father was a man you know for sure that he had no other physically begotten sons?
Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon refer to Jesus Christ as God's "Only" Begotten Son. Since I believe both books to be the word of God, and know what the word "only" means, I am 100% confident that Jesus Christ is what the scriptures say He is.
Quote:
And just wondering - isn't it incestuous for Heavenly Father to have had a son, physically, with his spirit-daughter (Mary)?
Of course not. Incest involves sexual intercourse. Mary was a virgin when she conceived the Son of God and when she gave birth to Him. Any sixth grade knows that a woman cannot have had sexual intercourse and continue to be a virgin.
Quote:
sal⋅va⋅tion [sal-vey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the act of saving or protecting from harm, risk, loss, destruction, etc.
2. the state of being saved or protected from harm, risk, etc.
3. a source, cause, or means of being saved or protected from harm, risk, etc.
4. Theology. deliverance from the power and penalty of sin; redemption.
heav⋅en [hev-uhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life.
2. (initial capital letter) Often, Heavens. the celestial powers; God.
3. a metonym for God (used in expressions of emphasis, surprise, etc.): For heaven's sake!
4. heavens, a. (used interjectionally to express emphasis, surprise, etc.): Heavens, what a cold room!
b. (used with a singular verb) a wooden roof or canopy over the outer stage of an Elizabethan theater.
5. Usually, heavens. the sky, firmament, or expanse of space surrounding the earth.
6. a place or state of supreme happiness: She made his life a heaven on earth.
So, salvation is a deliverance from harm, risk, loss, death, destruction, etc.
Those who are saved go to heaven, which is the abode of God, the state of being saved, a place or state of supreme happiness.
How do you define those words if not by the definitions I provided?
Dictionary definitions only go so far. They are not in-depth analyses of doctrine. If you were a condemned man, within hours of being executed and were to be given a reprieve, you would undoubtedly think of yourself as having been "saved," even if you were not released from prison. If you were another man, innocently imprisoned for life for a crime you had not committed, your would probably consider yourself as being unjustly "damned" to a punishment you did not deserve, even if you knew you were never to be put to death for your crime. For two men in the situations I've just described, salvation and damnation are a matter of perspective. Just as there are varying degrees of righteousness, faithfulness and obedience, there are varying degrees of salvation. For us, it's not simply a matter of being saved or being damned. If I thought for one minute that you were asking how I define "sal-vey-shuhn" and "hev-uhn" because of a genuine interest in understanding my belief system, I would make every effort to explain. So far, though, such sincerity has been clearly lacking in your posts.
Quote:
OK, thanks for being honest about it. I'd like to point out again that Christianity is monotheistic, while mormonism is polytheistic, and this is an essential difference which identifies mormonism as non-Christian from a Christian perspective.
Whatever. As I already said, God understands exactly who I believe Him to be and how I understand the relationship between Him and His Son. Whatever label you personally may feel applies to me will be entirely immaterial at the end of the day.
Quote:
Well, Muslims would be wrong.
I'm sure that, according to you they would be, but then according to you, everyone whose views are different from yours are wrong. I'm just pointing out that so much of how we view other people's beliefs is based on a limited understanding of their beliefs. I can see where you would think that the doctrine of the Trinity is entirely monotheistic. On the other hand, the word itself derives from a root meaning three. Saying that three are one doesn't hold much weight to someone who believes that the only God is Allah.
Quote:
All words are "man-made". So then I take it you have no problem considering Warren Jeffs and other polygamists to be fellow "LDS"? "LDS" is just a man-made term, after all.
Well, I see you often say you're a Latter-day Saint. How many times have I called you on it? I don't believe that Warren Jeffs and his followers belong to the same Church as I do, and furthermore, I don't think for one minute that when you say you're a Latter-day Saint you want people to associate you with my Church.
The problem is that Mormon doctrine is so different from Mormon teaching that they are frequently at odds.
Johnny, doctrines are teachings. The words are essentially synonymous.
Quote:
It's interesting to me, and in all honesty it appears disingenuous to me, that the mormon religion keeps records of the teachings of its prophets and uses them for teaching, but then will backpedal and say that none of those teachings are actual doctrine because they are not scripture from any of the mormon canons.
Every religion has the right to define its own doctrines and to establish a procedure by which something becomes doctrine. Within the LDS faith, that procedure is probably even more clear cut than it is within most faiths. You don't understand where we draw the line between official doctrine and personal opinion, and that's understandable. If we were intentionally trying to mislead or confuse you in terms of what we believe, I would agree that it would be disingenuous. We're not trying to do that, but surely you must realize that our doctrines are binding upon us, not upon you.
As members of the Church, we are entirely comfortable knowing what's doctrine and what's not. The rule of thumb is that if a teaching can be found within the pages of our "Standard Works" (The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price) it is official doctrine. That's an awful lot of material for non-members of our Church to focus on if they really want to know what we believe. Yes, we keep records of what our leaders have said over the years. I shudder to think what a heyday people would have if we were to try to get rid of them. The words of our leaders, past and present, aren't a secret, but they are not all doctrinal. If one of our leaders has said something that clarifies a doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon, we use it to help us understand that doctrine. If one of our leaders has said something that can't be found anywhere in our Standard Works, it's a safe bet that this individual was doing nothing more than voicing his own opinion or sharing his personal interpretation of a teaching. I'm afraid I really don't understand why that should be so difficult to understand. We Latter-day Saints have no trouble grasping that concept, and I can't imagine that we're all that much smarter than the rest of you.
Quote:
A good example is that mormon doctrine, from the Pearl of Great Price, says that mormons are not to drink "hot drinks". Mormon teachings, however, which are not in the scripture, interpret "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea. In practice, mormons will refuse coffee and tea and some even refuse soda due to the caffeine in it.
Just as a matter of clarification, this doctrine, known as "The Word of Wisdom," is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, not in the Pearl of Great Price. For a hundred and seventy years now, the Church leadership has taught that "hot drinks" refers to tea and coffee. It was what Joseph Smith taught when he was first given the revelation. This is nothing new. Yes, some members of the Church abstain from caffeinated sodas. Given the fact that the entire point of the Word of Wisdom is to provide us with wise counsel on what foods and drinks are unhealthy for our bodies, it's arguably reasonable to avoid caffeinated soft drinks. That doesn't mean it's against the Word of Wisdom to drink them; it's just a choice some members of the Church have made for themselves. (Personally, I keep Coca Cola in business single-handedly.)
Quote:
The other problem is that the men teaching these things are often considered "prophets". But if they are prophets, then what they teach is either of God or not of God. And if someone claims to be a prophet speaking things of God, but then is wrong, that person is a false prophet. So there is a credibility problem brought about by the teachings of mormon "prophets". In being wrong and/or non-doctrinal in any teachings they show themselves to be false prophets.
Joseph Smith one said, "A man is a prophet only when he is acting as such." We have never held our leaders to be infallible, and none of them have held themselves to be infallible either. They are human beings and have every right to hold opinions of their own, right or wrong. When they speak, they almost always refer specifically to something which is written in the Standard Works. It is clear to us that they are teaching doctrine. On occasion, one of them might make a statement that some members of the Church may take issue with. One relatively recent prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, was very, very far right politically speaking, and did not hesitate to voice his opinions on political issues. Some of the members of the Church agreed with every word he said; others recognized that his political ideology was way out of sync with their own. But he spoke as a man, not as a prophet, and none of us lost our testimonies of the truthfulness of the gospel because of anything he said.
Furthermore, none of our leaders -- not even the prophet -- establishes doctrine individually. We believe that the Lord continues to direct His Church through revelation to these men, but He does so according to a pattern. If He were to actually wish to reveal a new doctrine (as has happened only a couple of times in well over a hundred years), He would reveal it first to the Prophet. The Prophet would meet with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and would tell them what the Lord had revealed to him. The Twelve would then pray for guidance, more than likely within the walls of the temple, and also individually. They would ask God for confirmation of what the Prophet had told them. When all twelve of them had received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the Prophet's words were, in fact, the word of God (and not until), they would present the doctrine to the membership of the Church for a sustaining vote. Having received that sustaining vote, a new doctrine would be established and would probably be added to the Doctrine and Covenants within a relatively short period of time. It's an easily understood system for anyone who really wants to understand it. Those who don't will undoubtedly continue to find it confusing.
(Personally, I keep Coca Cola in business single-handedly.)
I am shocked that you drink Coca Cola Katzpur!
Why would you ever do that when Pepsi is so obviously much better tasting?
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.
