LDS Mormons, who is Heavenly Father?

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
But what do such manuals contain but the doctrine that is to be taught to novitiates as the substance of the faith? It's really not a question of whether or not they are on the same par as scripture, as that is immaterial/not something that anyone has argued.

The scriptures themselves are at the top, with the manuals and other such materials being secondary.

From there, you've got the issue of "how old is the manual?". Manuals are constantly being updated or even replaced as the church seeks ways to better explain the theology *and* make note of modern trends that are affecting the membership. For example, whereas genealogy manuals from the 1950s were well-served in explaining how microfiche and microfilm operated, modern-day manuals would need to explain how computer-based databases and archive services work as that's where most of the archiving is done now.

Phoebe's been quoting a manual from 1984, a manual that has likely been replaced twice over by now. In contrast, I've been posting the most current lesson on the topic from the most current manual for investigators and new converts, and nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jane_Doe
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
The lesson manual, Gospel Principles, has very little information about "Our Father in Heaven." It says nothing about his marriage. It says nothing about his mortal life or
his exaltation.

The priesthood lesson manual, Search These Commandments, tells about his mortal probation, that he was a finite being, and that he had his endowments.

The student manual, Achieving a Celestial Marriage, teaches that marriage is the way to become like him (p. 65), that God was once an immortal man, he lived on an earth like our own, that he had overcome step by step until he arrived at the point where he is now. It says, "GOD IS NOW AN EXALTED MAN WITH POWERS OF ETERNAL INCREASE" (p. 129).

All three manuals were approved by the LDS church. The first manual, Gospel Principles, contains information that they might teach new members.

Again, what's the copyright date on those works?

Are they the most current? The manuals most of us here would actually be working with on a daily basis?
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,523
6,403
Midwest
✟79,768.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Manuals are replaced as they are deemed ineffectual to the conversion of non-Mormons (particularly Bible-taught Christians) or if the church wants to downplay offensive doctrine. They will not publish these reasons because it is something they don't want outsiders to know. Don't worry, friends, I can tolerate criticism.

“The purpose of teaching … [is] that we might be an instrument in the hands of the Lord in changing the heart of an individual.”
Howard W. Hunter
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Howard W. Hunter Chapter 22: Teaching the Gospel

"I have often thought that our young people in the Church would be very much like other young people outside of the Church if they do not establish some mastery and command of the standard works.* All of you remember the verses the Prophet Joseph wrote from his confinement in Liberty Jail. Among them he wrote, 'For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it' (D&C 123:12; emphasis added)."
Teachings of Howard W. Hunter
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Howard W. Hunter Chapter 22: Teaching the Gospel

*The "standard works" are the KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants.

The date of copyrights only matters if the truth is altered from one decade to another.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
I suppose, but I kinda feel like we're talking past each other again, because I wrote "how it is affirmed", not "how it is used".
I misunderstood you. My apologies.
I take it as a given that since we agree that such manuals contain doctrine (whether in the LDS materials or those of a mainstream church, as in my example of the Coptic servants book), what they contain is being taught because it is affirmed as the church's faith, and hence this (to me, artificial) distinction between the manual as a thing and the doctrine that it contains really makes no sense. It's not about the manual as a book, it's about what it contains, right? And what it contains is official doctrine, or else it wouldn't be in the manual. Am I just wrong about that basic assumption? (That's why I asked earlier what good they would be if they didn't contain doctrine, and what they would be teaching instead in that case; I'd still like some kind of answer to that, if you don't mind, so that I can make sense of what it means to object to the manual as 'not official'.)
Again, LDS believe doctrine comes from God- He is the ultimate author. These are documented in scripture and official proclamations.

Manuals, on the other hand, are written by humans. These humans do study thoroughly, but are innately fallible. A human -- no matter how well studied -- cannot write scripture-- aka cannot write God's doctrine. All they can write is the best the best human understanding of it. These manuals are also updated regularly (see Ironhold's post #81).

So, when a manual quotes scripture, then that is official doctrine (written ultimately by God). The part commentary is then written by humans and not God, and hence is not official doctrine. To say "what this human wrote is official doctrine" would be to put is on par with God given scripture.

Does that make sense?

You and Ironhold, in a way, by labeling the teaching manual referenced by Phoebe Ann as being something less than official.
Because her quotes don't come from official doctrine (aka scripture and official proclamations). Frequently her quotes are also from out-of-date manuals. Her claim that she "uses official sources" is completely false.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
The lesson manual, Gospel Principles, has very little information about "Our Father in Heaven." It says nothing about his marriage. It says nothing about his mortal life or
his exaltation..
Because it's talking about actual doctrines, not speculations.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Manuals are replaced as they are deemed ineffectual to the conversion of non-Mormons (particularly Bible-taught Christians) or if the church wants to downplay offensive doctrine.
[Lacking any citation]
They will not publish these reasons because it is something they don't want outsiders to know. Don't worry, friends, I can tolerate criticism..
Criticism = pointing out you are knowingly claiming false things.
The date of copyrights only matters if the truth is altered from one decade to another.
Demonstrably a false claim, for the reasons pointed out in post 81.

Your unwillingness to even say the copyright date of the source your citing (which is required for an actual citation) demonstrates a weak case.
 
Upvote 0

withwonderingawe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2015
3,592
510
71
Salem Ut
✟161,549.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did the Mormon religon change its stance on polygamy, when marrying multiple wives became illegal in the United States?
Or the idea that people of color have no soul,did this change during the Civil rights movement?

I’m sorry this is so long but I think we need to explain another concept;

First some doctrine as Mormons see it.
There are higher principles and lower principles, the Lord gives us these principles according to our ability to live them.

*With the priesthood there is the Higher Melchisedec Priesthood open to all men with blessing for their families. Then there is the lower Levitical Priesthood which was only for Levites and then no priesthood at all which was true for most of the world.

*With the principle of giving there is having “all things in common” which we call the United Order and the Law of Consecration, where we consecrate all that we have to the Lord.
And there is the lower principle of tithing where you give only a tenth of your increase.

*With marriage there is the higher principle of eternal celestial marriage, sealed on earth that which is sealed in heaven. This principle also includes plural marriage if it is sanction by God. Then there are marriages of “this world” (see Luke 20), they are recognize and sanctioned by God but they are not eternal and do not include plural marriage.

We believe all of the higher principles were all taught and lived at the time of Adam. I’ll use the priesthood as my example.

We understand that Able and Cain were Melchisedec Priesthood holders however as time progressed and people began to sin and they lost the higher so the lower priesthood was put in place. The Priesthood became a birthright going to the oldest or most worthy son only rather than all men. Later the lower priesthood was given to the Levites only. When Christ came who is the High Priest of the order of Melchisedec he restored the higher priesthood and ordained all men to it. But then men sin and the priesthood was totally taken from the earth, Daniel calls this “the overspreading of abominations” when the “sacrifice and the oblation to cease”. See Dan 9

Then came the “restitution of all things”

Acts 3 Peter said;
19 ¶Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

We believe this is a prophecy about Joseph Smith and the restored Church. The second coming of Christ would not happen until there was this restitution.

In Act 1 there is another prophecy;

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

This happened in the spring of 1820 when Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith.

“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
……When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph Smith

With this vision “the restitutions of all things” began. On the 15th of May 1829 John the Baptist returned to the earth as an Elias or messenger and restored the lower priesthood. Shortly after that Peter, James and John, the last three men who held priesthood and since their priesthood never ends still retain it, appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordained them to the Melchisedec Priesthood. With this restitution it was restored to all men of every nation as it was in the days of Adam. Joseph ordained 3 black men to the priesthood.

Now some actual history; One of the main reasons Joseph was killed was because he was anti slavery.

Contrary to what you have heard Mormons have always believed that black men had souls. Joseph was asked about the black situation and what he would do about slavery. I’m paraphrasing here, he said ‘Educated a black man and he will rise above the masters whose boots he now polishes’.

In a revelation found in 101 the Lord told Joseph
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

This country was under condemnation for the bondage of black men and women. However Joseph was against abolitionist because it would release the blacks from slavery with no structure, no education and no skills. It would also destroy the South’s economy and leave everyone in poverty. (which it did)

He had a plan of his own, he would have the government sell the lands out west and use the money to pay the slave owners as they released their slaves, he would also use it to educated the blacks. He thought if they could do this gradually the United State could avoid the impending war which he had seen in vision. This plan was in his platform as he ran for president of the US, (I don’t believe it was a serious campaign but more like trying to get his message out.) He was seen as a threat to the Southern way of life and this is the real reason the State of Missouri wanted him destroyed.

Now Joseph did ordain several black men to the priesthood, it was Brigham Young who placed a “temporary ban” (sorry I couldn’t help that). He never said why, there is no documentation as why he felt that he should do this or if the Lord told him to. He did not go through the 12 apostles as he should have, he was suppose to present a major change like this to the Twelve and get a unanimous vote. He did say that the blacks would receive the priesthood in the future and all of the blessings which came with it.

And, for the last century we have seen through a glass darkly. Different church members including some leaders have guessed building whole theories passing them off as doctrine. Then in the seventy’s the black people of our nation finally secured the right to vote. A short time later the temporary ban was lifted by the Lord and they received the priesthood once again.

My personal belief is that it had to do with that D&C 101

“ That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.”

As long as the black race was in bondage they were not free to act according to their own moral agency. It’s not a commendation of the back race but of the white race.

We could go into this more if you wish.

This same concept applies to the principles of the United Order, it’s tuff to live and only the righteous can make it work. Oliver Cowerdy even though he had seen so many visions was unwilling to live by this principle. Many early Mormon members did try to live with all things in common but after a generation their effort failed. Debt is what holds members back now, can’t consecrate your car debt to the Lord. We now live the lesser principle of tithing but we assume that one day in the future we will again live the United Order.

Same too with plural marriage.

I've wondered about this because these plural marriages were never registered legal marriages, today we would just call the second wife his mistress. So why the federal government had a say in it I'm not sure. I do feel that after coming to Utah some of the men started to misuse it, it was never meant collect as many wives as possible and they were suppose to get the ok from the prophet first. It was because of this misuse that this higher principle was taken away or had a “temporary ban”

The federal government came into Utah and began throwing men in jail, Pre. John Taylor our third prophet spent a great deal of time in hiding. Then they began confiscating Church property even the Salt Lake Temple which was under construction. The whole thing would be considered illegal today. Here's the churches official statement;

"The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30). Following a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage was instituted among Church members in the early 1840s (see section 132). From the 1860s to the 1880s, the United States government passed laws to make this religious practice illegal. These laws were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church."

Many members were ready to pack up and move to Mexico or Canada and that option was considered. There were several groups that did. President Woodruff had a dream where he saw how the Church would fall apart, the men would all go to jail and they would lose their temples. The Lord told him that for now the lesser principle would be put back in place but we understand that at some point we will once again live the higher principle.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,554
13,713
✟429,169.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I misunderstood you. My apologies.

Again, LDS believe doctrine comes from God- He is the ultimate author. These are documented in scripture and official proclamations.

Manuals, on the other hand, are written by humans. These humans do study thoroughly, but are innately fallible. A human -- no matter how well studied -- cannot write scripture-- aka cannot write God's doctrine. All they can write is the best the best human understanding of it. These manuals are also updated regularly (see Ironhold's post #81).

So, when a manual quotes scripture, then that is official doctrine (written ultimately by God). The part commentary is then written by humans and not God, and hence is not official doctrine. To say "what this human wrote is official doctrine" would be to put is on par with God given scripture.

Does that make sense?

Not really. The disciples of Jesus Christ wrote the New Testament, and they were all humans. Ditto all the writers of the Old Testament. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the early Church (which produced many, many commentaries on the scriptures, Church ritual, and Christian life more generally) that supports any such division between the scriptures and the people who wrote them, canonized them, taught them, etc.

In Christianity, things are evaluated on their content, and how well that matches (or doesn't match) what we have received.

Because her quotes don't come from official doctrine (aka scripture and official proclamations). Frequently her quotes are also from out-of-date manuals. Her claim that she "uses official sources" is completely false.

Why are they out of date? Does your doctrine become irrelevant or erroneous with the passage of time?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,554
13,713
✟429,169.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The scriptures themselves are at the top, with the manuals and other such materials being secondary

But if the manuals contain the doctrines and so forth as taught from the scriptures, then how does this division make any sense? (And if they don't contain that, then how are they fit to teach anyone what your faith is about?)

From there, you've got the issue of "how old is the manual?". Manuals are constantly being updated or even replaced as the church seeks ways to better explain the theology *and* make note of modern trends that are affecting the membership.

Ah, thank you for this. I just asked this question of Jane Doe because I saw her post before yours thanks to how the message alert system works, but I suppose this is as good an answer as any.

For example, whereas genealogy manuals from the 1950s were well-served in explaining how microfiche and microfilm operated, modern-day manuals would need to explain how computer-based databases and archive services work as that's where most of the archiving is done now.

I'm not sure how far you take this analogy. Scientific manuals are updated as techniques and technology advance, but what new techniques or technology could there be in a non-scientific field such as theology? Is there some kind of new technique or new manner of doing theology for the LDS that would not have been there in 1984 or whenever?

Phoebe's been quoting a manual from 1984, a manual that has likely been replaced twice over by now. In contrast, I've been posting the most current lesson on the topic from the most current manual for investigators and new converts, and nothing.

Okay. How is this not at least tacitly admitting that Mormon doctrine changes from one era to the next?

I can as necessary pull from my bookshelf writings by the likes of St. Gregory the Illuminator (3rd century), St. Shenouda the Archimandrite (4th century), Mar George Bishop of the Arabs (8th century), Gregory Bar Hebraeus (13th century), Ibn Kabar (14th century), etc. and in any one of them at any point turn to a page and read the very same faith elucidated by these venerable people of the past as we proclaim and teach today in the modern Coptic Orthodox Church, whether by word or in writing in a manual or in any other source (most definitely including the holy scriptures).

Disregarding the literal/temporal history of the LDS movement (i.e., the fact that it does not predate the 19th century), why is this not the case with Mormonism? That is to say, in an operational sense, why do faithful Mormons such as yourselves apparently decide what your faith is by referencing copyright dates, as though the Truth changes with the passage of time?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Not really. The disciples of Jesus Christ wrote the New Testament, and they were all humans. Ditto all the writers of the Old Testament.
The ultimate author of work was God. He gave revelations, and his disciples (OT & NT) work them down. This differs dramatically than someone else writing things their own origin down.

Do you really not see the difference? (This is an honest question, and I mean it with the upmost respect. Your Orthodox position is just as strange to me as the vise versa).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
I'm not sure how far you take this analogy. Scientific manuals are updated as techniques and technology advance, but what new techniques or technology could there be in a non-scientific field such as theology? Is there some kind of new technique or new manner of doing theology for the LDS that would not have been there in 1984 or whenever?
Another example to help--
Doctrine: through prayer we can consult God to receive wisdom. This can be done wherever whenever.
Nowadays a common item lesson to teach this is to compare it to a smart phone. In the early 2000's it was a cell phone and always being able to call someone. In the late 90's it was a landline, in the early 1900's a library. The world's changed and it's best to use examples from our current world.

Another example working the other way would be manuals which talked about farming culture, barn raising, gathering around the radio, or 1950's dances. These just aren't great tools to explain things nowadays, because they are foreign to us.

A third example would be evolving language over time. For example, <1970 the word "gay" meant happy. For example, a classic song in West Side Story uses the word that way (she's actually talking about how her crush on a male makes her feel happy and gay). Nowadays language has shifted that that meaning doesn't convey. Different words are much better to be used. (Yes, I realize this is a non-theological example, but it's just the first one that came to my mind).

Okay. How is this not at least tacitly admitting that Mormon doctrine changes from one era to the next?
No, receiving new revelation is a completely different thing.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Another example working the other way would be manuals which talked about farming culture, barn raising, gathering around the radio, or 1950's dances. These just aren't great tools to explain things nowadays, because they are foreign to us.
(I thought of a case study for this)
Doctrine: Love and honor thy mother.
In rural Idaho 1920's there was a story of a 10 year old boy who wanted to show his love for his mom. So he drove to town and bought her some kerosene for the lamps, so she didn't have to and could have light.
That's a good sweet story-- in the context of rural Idaho 1920's. That's not an story you want to be teaching your 10 year old class in 2016!! That is, unless you want all of their moms to have heart attacks!!!
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,554
13,713
✟429,169.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The ultimate author of work was God. He gave revelations, and his disciples (OT & NT) work them down. This differs dramatically than someone else writing things their own origin down.

Do you really not see the difference? (This is an honest question, and I mean it with the upmost respect. Your Orthodox position is just as strange to me as the vise versa).

It's not that I don't see the difference, it's that I'm talking about content. If scripture says X, and another piece of writing exists which is there to explain X within a given tradition, it makes no sense to say "Well, this other piece of writing isn't scripture, therefore..." (we don't talk about it; it can't be thought of as being 'official'; etc.).

It would be one thing if we were talking about some other tradition's exposition -- say, if someone were objecting that Mormon interpretations of scripture don't line up with Catholic or Anglican interpretations of the same. But that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about Mormon writings supporting the Mormon interpretations of whatever the topic of the writings is (scripture, marriage, whatever).

So it's pretty strange. I'm unaware of any sect of Christianity that treats its own writings and tradition this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYCGuy
Upvote 0

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
It's not that I don't see the difference, it's that I'm talking about content. If scripture says X, and another piece of writing exists which is there to explain X within a given tradition, it makes no sense to say "Well, this other piece of writing isn't scripture, therefore..." (we don't talk about it; it can't be thought of as being 'official'; etc.).
You can talk about a manual, read it, etc. But don't mistake it for scripture. It seems pretty logical and I don't know any group that would advocate such a thing. Forgive me, but I don't see what's so "different" about this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jane_Doe

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
6,658
1,043
115
✟100,321.00
Faith
Mormon
Jane, do you realize that I am not arguing that the LDS manual or any other group's teaching materials are scripture?

Your replies are not addressing what I've actually written.
I apologize, I don't think I'm understanding your actual objection...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you hold you teaching manuals on the same par as scripture? No, of course not! Such is nonsense! Neither do LDS.
Teaching manuals should reflect scripture. That the lds.org posts them and endorses them makes them official sources. Same with any other references or resouces outside of you canonized scripture that are posted on official lds websites or in official lds publications. You can't get around that, much as the lds try.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,554
13,713
✟429,169.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I apologize, I don't think I'm understanding your actual objection...

Okay. Can you please address the questions in posts 78 and 79 on the previous page? I feel like restating them here would be a waste of energy and space when they're already there. As you will read there, we are in agreement that manuals are not in themselves scripture, so writing that is not an answer to the questions I've asked.

Thank you. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums