LDS J. Smith said Heavenly Father Died

[Rescued One]

"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."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, c. 1976, p. 346

Comments?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Making points about LDS doctrine is much more effective when a quotes come from LDS cannon. This is non-canonical, so there's not much point in dwelling on it.

 

[NYCGuy]

Making points about LDS doctrine is much more effective when a quotes come from LDS cannon. This is non-canonical, so there's not much point in dwelling on it.

Ignore the words of your prophets and apostles, as long as they're not in your scriptures...guess you'll be ignoring practically everything they've said, including what they say at General Conference...might as well not even listen to those...

 

[NYCGuy]

Curiously, you can purchase Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smtih from Deseret Book, which of course is owned by the Mormon church.

Guessing they're in the habit of selling non-edifying material? Here is how the Mormon church-owned bookstore describes that book:

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the seminal work compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, is one of the most cited and highly acclaimed book in LDS literature.

This landmark volume includes the well-known King Follett discourse and other beloved writings and sermons, along with comprehensive accounts of Joseph's teachings from his early days in Kirtland to his final days at Nauvoo, in a convenient chronological arrangement.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith makes an ideal gift for missionaries, recent converts, and for anyone who wants to know more about this incredible prophet, the Church, and principles of the gospel. This valuable reference tool is a must-have for members of the Church and should have a place in every home library.

 

[dzheremi]

Whether it is thought of as doctrinal or not, it is a quote from the Mormon prophet, and it can be reasonably assumed that he said it with the intent of advancing some sort of theological idea (read: I don't think it's fair to treat it as though he was talking just to hear himself talk just because it's not a part of the Mormon canon). So we're still stuck trying to puzzle out what he actually means. It seems like he's advancing some kind of Patripassionism (the belief that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross). That's pretty weird, especially given Mormonism's insistence on a tritheistic trinity.

 

[Ironhold]

Whether it is thought of as doctrinal or not, it is a quote from the Mormon prophet, and it can be reasonably assumed that he said it with the intent of advancing some sort of theological idea (read: I don't think it's fair to treat it as though he was talking just to hear himself talk just because it's not a part of the Mormon canon). So we're still stuck trying to puzzle out what he actually means. It seems like he's advancing some kind of Patripassionism (the belief that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross). That's pretty weird, especially given Mormonism's insistence on a tritheistic trinity.

Actually, what he's saying is "Jesus knew what to do because Heavenly Father himself had done it before some time in the past, and so they both understood what was going on."

 

[dzheremi]

Based on what? Why is he claiming that the Father died? The quote says that if you don't agree with him, then you disbelieve the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that the Father died?

 

[Ironhold]

Based on what? Why is he claiming that the Father died? The quote says that if you don't agree with him, then you disbelieve the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that the Father died?

edit - found it.

John 5:19, 30 -

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

 

[NYCGuy]

Whether it is thought of as doctrinal or not, it is a quote from the Mormon prophet, and it can be reasonably assumed that he said it with the intent of advancing some sort of theological idea (read: I don't think it's fair to treat it as though he was talking just to hear himself talk just because it's not a part of the Mormon canon). So we're still stuck trying to puzzle out what he actually means. It seems like he's advancing some kind of Patripassionism (the belief that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross). That's pretty weird, especially given Mormonism's insistence on a tritheistic trinity.

This of course is related to the idea that God the Father was once a man on an earth somewhere else. It has been taught that Jesus only does/did what the Father did, and based on that, it is taught that the Father was once the savior of another earth.

 

[dzheremi]

So the Mormon gods cannot do anything of themselves, but can only imitate what other, earlier gods have done? That's a little odd, because in the very same Gospel of St. John that was just quoted by Ironhold as an explanation of the Mormon idea, Christ our God says of His life: "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (10:18) He then says that He received this command His Father. Notably, He does not say that He can do this because the Father did it before Him.

Also, does this relation of the actions of the Father and the Son extend to everything, or just the resurrection? Because earlier in this thread I noted that this sounds like a strange kind of Patripassionism, but was corrected by Ironhold that this is not the case, because it is about the Father and the Son "(understanding) what was going on" (what that explanation itself even means, I couldn't say), not about the Father suffering on the cross. This raises the question, though: If Jesus only "understood what was going on" or was able to do something because the Father did it first, then wouldn't His crucifixion and resurrection mean that the Father Himself must've been crucified and resurrected at some point?

Typing that hurts my soul, but seriously...if you're going to read the scriptures with such a literal understanding in order to support this idea, then how can it not mean that? (Unless you posit that this is somehow the case with regard to the resurrection but not the crucifixion, in which case how can Jesus' words really mean what you apparently think they mean?)

I can't believe Mormonism manages to be both Patripassionist in some regard and also polytheistic in holding to multiple incarnate gods with of heterogenous/alien substance! I honestly would not have believed that such a combination were theologically possible before now (since Patripassionism obviously confuses the Persons, while tritheism has no Persons/no essential Trinitarian relation), and I don't think I could imagine something more self-contradictory if I were consciously trying to do so. Wow.

 

[Jane_Doe]

So the Mormon gods cannot do anything of themselves, but can only imitate what other, earlier gods have done? That's a little odd, because in the very same Gospel of St. John that was just quoted by Ironhold as an explanation of the Mormon idea, Christ our God says of His life: "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (10:18) He then says that He received this command His Father.

There's only one Truth. God is not some arbitrary dictator to whimsically make up rules and other things. Rather the singular Truth is taught.

Typing that hurts my soul, but seriously...if you're going to read the scriptures with such a literal understanding in order to support this idea, then how can it not mean that?

Note: from the LDS perspective, LDS teaching from scripture are guided by divine revelation. Not by whimsically choosing which way to interpret things.

I can't believe Mormonism manages to be both Patripassionist in some regard and also polytheistic in holding to multiple incarnate gods with of heterogenous/alien substance!

*Blink blink* I think you're confusing both of us here. Personally, when I am studying another faith, I find it most productive to just to understand that faith as that faith. I find that importing labels (and hence ideas) from different faith traditions confuses things.

 

[dzheremi]

There's only one Truth. God is not some arbitrary dictator to whimsically make up rules and other things. Rather the singular Truth is taught.

How is this related to the portion of my post which you quoted?

Note: from the LDS perspective, LDS teaching from scripture are guided by divine revelation. Not by whimsically choosing which way to interpret things.

How this an answer to what I asked? I did not ask whether or not LDS feel that their teachings are guided by divine revelation, and that has no impact on the question I actually did ask.

*Blink blink* I think you're confusing both of us here. Personally, when I am studying another faith, I find it most productive to just to understand that faith as that faith. I find that importing labels (and hence ideas) from different faith traditions confuses things.

Okay. I'm sorry for having confused you, but that does not change the fact that these terms and concepts are traditional to the discussion of theology and heresy, so I do not imagine that everyone will be so confused by them. And if they are, they may look them up, as can any Mormon poster. I am going to venture that for most Christians who participate in these LDS threads, they would be good terms and concepts to familiarize themselves with, given how aptly they fit what Mormons have advanced in this thread and others, despite having been coined centuries before the appearance of the Mormon religion. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[NYCGuy]

Yes, the idea is that Jesus only does what the Father did before. This is all related to the idea that the Father was once a man, that the Father is an exalted man, plurality of gods, and infinite regress of gods. Yes, presumably (not all Mormons believe this), the Father, in some other time and some other world, was the savior of that world, died and was resurrected, and became the Father for us. Jesus follows the Father's example.

It may be helpful to read the King Follett Discourse, as it discusses this concept:

http://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/talks/JS KingFollettDiscourse.pdf

 

[Jane_Doe]

How is this related to the portion of my post which you quoted?

It's not really "imitating", rather the same Truth always being present.

How this an answer to what I asked?

It was more of an education comment than answer. Hence the "note" annotation. Sorry if that didn't communicate.

Okay. I'm sorry for having confused you, but that does not change the fact that these terms and concepts are traditional to the discussion of theology and heresy, so I do not imagine that everyone will be so confused by them. And if they are, they may look them up, as can any Mormon poster. I am going to venture that for most Christians who participate in these LDS threads, they would be good terms and concepts to familiarize themselves with, given how aptly they fit what Mormons have advanced in this thread and others, despite having been coined centuries before the appearance of the Mormon religion. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

I'm just pointing out tha, in my experience, importing in concept foreign to that faith almost always confuses matters. The reason behind this in that these concepts come with different underlying assumptions. For example, using Taoist concepts to explain Orthodox beliefs would almost always confuse things. Likewise, using these concepts to explain LDS beliefs will almost always confuse things.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm just pointing out tha, in my experience, importing in concept foreign to that faith almost always confuses matters.

I am not writing anything that a Mormon might write about their own faith, though. Particularly as Mormonism claims to be Christianity, I am evaluating it thusly.

The reason behind this in that these concepts come with different underlying assumptions.

That's fine. That does not change what I just wrote or why I wrote it.

For example, using Taoist concepts to explain Orthodox beliefs would almost always confuse things.

I suppose nobody told Hieromonk Damscene of the Serbian Orthodox Church that before he wrote and published the book Christ the Eternal Tao in 1999.

Likewise, using these concepts to explain LDS beliefs will almost always confuse things.

I am not explaining LDS beliefs as an LDS person would, though. That has already been done in this thread by Mormons, as is right to expect. Instead, I am evaluating them according to the standards of traditional Christianity. I would counsel anyone who wishes to know LDS beliefs directly from the LDS themselves to ask actual LDS people such as you, Ironhold, Peter 1000, etc., read the BOM, POGP, and D&C, and/or go to an LDS meetinghouse, if they are properly disposed to do so.

 

[Super14LDS]

This of course is related to the idea that God the Father was once a man on an earth somewhere else. It has been taught that Jesus only does/did what the Father did, and based on that, it is taught that the Father was once the savior of another earth.

Sounds like you have correctly explained

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Jesus couldn't of done it unless He'd seen His Father do it; just like He said. Once He has done everything His Father did, He will do greater things, just as Jesus has promised us, that we will do greater things.

We only saw Jesus save souls on one planet yet we may each save souls on many planets.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I am not writing anything that a Mormon might write about their own faith, though. Particularly as Mormonism claims to be Christianity, I am evaluating it thusly.

Even within the Christian umbrella, it's not a good idea to transfer ideas across different groups. For example, many Calvinistic concepts will confuse understanding of Catholics.

I am not explaining LDS beliefs as an LDS person would, though. That has already been done in this thread by Mormons, as is right to expect. Instead, I am evaluating them according to the standards of traditional Christianity.

Again, transferring foreign ideas across disciplines is a non productive idea. LS should be explained in LDS terms, Orthodox in Orthodox, Baptist in Baptist, etc.

I would counsel anyone who wishes to know LDS beliefs directly from the LDS themselves to ask actual LDS people such as you, Ironhold, Peter 1000, etc., read the BOM, POGP, and D&C, and/or go to an LDS meetinghouse, if they are properly disposed to do so.

Agreed... but this... I'm confused why you say this, which (appears to me) to directly conflict with your previous statement. I feel I am not understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

There is a difference between explaining and evaluating. If I were merely explaining LDS doctrine according to LDS sources, then I would just copy and paste from those sources and be done with it; there'd be no need to contextualize them within any other framework, as the framework is inherent within the source -- that's what makes the source an LDS one (as opposed to Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Armenian Apostolic, or whatever). The framework is "Here is what the LDS say, and here is where they say it."

But I am not doing that. You may do that. I am a Christian, so I do not take the Bible to be an LDS book as LDS people do; it is the book of the Christian Church, being composed within it and for it many, many centuries before the establishment of the LDS religion. So the only context in which LDS ideas must be evaluated in this schema is that of traditional Christianity, which has left us various terms and concepts by which we may evaluate ideas which come from outside of the faith.

 

[Rescued One]

From the King Follett Sermon:
"I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say. Pray that the Lord may strengthen my lungs, stay the winds, and let the prayers of the Saints to heaven appear, that they may enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, for the effectual prayers of the righteous avail much. There is strength here, and I verily believe that your prayers will be heard."
The King Follett Sermon - Ensign Apr. 1971 - ensign

Those are not my words.

 

[Peter1000]

From the King Follett Sermon:
"I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say. Pray that the Lord may strengthen my lungs, stay the winds, and let the prayers of the Saints to heaven appear, that they may enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, for the effectual prayers of the righteous avail much. There is strength here, and I verily believe that your prayers will be heard."
The King Follett Sermon - Ensign Apr. 1971 - ensign

Those are not my words.

You mean you didn't say the things that you quoted? To bad, they are good words for any Christian to follow. If this is the reason you left the Mormon church, you lost a good heritage.