FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Preview of "The Mormons" (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Preview of "The Mormons"
Kent
Member
Member # 7850

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I do not know of any scriptures which speak of how God created our spirits. Many people believe it is similar to how our bodies were created (Dad & Mom). We do not claim to know how God even created Adam and Eve, and how they were different from the other humans which may have been living on the earth (and there are plenty of Mormons that believe in Evolution). As a result, we definitely do not have any doctrine on how God came to have the physical body that prophets have attested to witnessing. There is one camp in the church that speculates that God was once a man living on an earth who worshipped his God the Father, and back and back and back. The truth to these questions is usually, "We just don't know."
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Occ, did you see my questions? How do you reconcile what you said with the statement from the church that only that which is in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith is official?
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 7850

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Occasional, we do not even know how the Father came to have a human body. "Logically" is not the same as "doctrinally." Members are free to speculate on this and a host of other ideas. A non-binding non-canonical belief could be a popularly held notion, but is it really the same as "doctrine"?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What statement of mine are you talking about? God's body type or the Mother in Heaven?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will say that the idea of a "Mother in Heaven" is doctrinal without reservation. In fact, I think we would have to have a revelation about her NOT existing to say otherwise.
That statement. It isn't stated anywhere in the places listed as sources of official doctrine.
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well then for the purposes of this discussion I am divorcing "doctrine" with "truth" as clearly all doctrine is truth but not all truth is official doctrine.

But as for official documentation of a heavenl mother,

From the Proclamation to the Family, "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (emphasis mine)

Can there be anymore debate on the topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_Mother#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

^ More discussion on the topic.

[ May 07, 2007, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you reconcile what you said with the statement from the church that only that which is in the scriptures, a proclamation, or the Articles of Faith is official?"

That is the question isn't it? I am sorry, but I am not the only Mormon who sees those rules as, at best, minimizing the effect of pop-doctrines in the Mormon culture. I fully sympathize with the idea of more rigorous definitions of doctrine, but think it has its limits for clear understanding. Mormon doctrine is not static or (mostly) dogmatic.

Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're taking issue with the statement from the church?

Do you define Mormon doctrine as what is official doctrine or as what most Mormons believe?

In case it isn't clear, I am opposed to members deciding on their own what is and isn't official doctrine and proclaiming it as such.

--

BB: That's the strongest statement I've seen from the official sources of doctrine. [Smile]

Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not taking issue with it *so far as its purpose to help people "outside" understand the doctrinal issues involved in the Mormon faith.* However, as a general statement FOR the faithful, I think it is a minimalist set of guidelines to curtail the more extreme personal beliefs.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't agree. Do you think the church is saying one thing to non-members and the press and another thing to members? What makes you think that?
Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No I do not. However, the purposes are different. It is the difference between the Constitution of the United States and the Laws created in association with it.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if the hymns we sing are a prayer to God himself.
The song of the righteous is a prayer to God-- not just the hymns from the hymnbook. [Smile] It's a quibble, I know...

It's my opinion that Heavenly Father and Mother are even more perfectly unified than the rest of the Godhead, so talking about the one is talking about the other. I'm not willing to go so far as to say they are physically one body; but it makes for some interesting thoughts.

quote:
The Holy Ghost is a Deity and we don't pray to him/her/it.
The Holy Ghost is male, at least if we take Nephi's account of his encounter with him literally.

quote:
Mormons don't even pray to Jesus, and He is considered Deity.
Well...actually we DO pray to Jesus--if He's physically present. Again, quibbles.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 7850

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, you should change your screen name to "quibbles".
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll think about it. [Smile]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shan
Member
Member # 4550

 - posted      Profile for Shan           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*giggles* at rivka

Did anyone capture this on video or dvd? I was able to see part 1 (as I was in a hotel that had TV and cable) but not part 2. [Frown]

Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tatiana posted a link up-thread.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is the difference between the Constitution of the United States and the Laws created in association with it.
Ah. I see it as Doctrine, then informed opinions from leaders about doctrine, then speculative doctrine, then folk doctrine, then false doctrine.

And anything other than the first doctrine carries with it the possibility of being false doctrine.

Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah. I see it as Doctrine, then informed opinions from leaders about doctrine, then speculative doctrine, then folk doctrine, then false doctrine.
I'm not saying that the "Heavenly Mother" doctrine necessarily falls into the category I'm about to postulate, but I DO think there are some doctrines which, while never explicitly stated, must logically follow from explicit doctrines. For example, if you have a doctrine that says "all berries are yummy," and you have another doctrine that says "tomatoes are to be considered berries in all respects," it should ALSO be considered doctrine that tomatoes are yummy.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
It's a kinder, gentler apathy which I represent. I don't have to be all up in your face about the fact that I'm apathetic; I'm content to uncare about things rather lazily.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I know and that makes sense. However, considering human vagaries and the fact that hundred people can read the same scripture and be sure of a hundred different meanings, I don't like holding the conclusion of inferences as gospel.

I think such a conclusion very well COULD be true, but I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else any favors by blurring the line between what it explicit and what is inferred. That's how culture and traditions get mixed in with absolute truth.

Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, I know and that makes sense. However, considering human vagaries and the fact that hundred people can read the same scripture and be sure of a hundred different meanings, I don't like holding the conclusion of inferences as gospel.

I think such a conclusion very well COULD be true, but I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else any favors by blurring the line between what it explicit and what is inferred. That's how culture and traditions get mixed in with absolute truth.

I disagree that we do not do ourselves any favors when we take our own study of the scriptures and draw conclusions that the general authorities have not given their blessing too. Everyone is to read the scriptures precisely so that they can learn how to become like God, and to know what He knows. Having strong opinions and well thought out theories are a good thing, its good to practice applying your knowledge and solving problems.

The only pitfall is when somebody takes a theory or conclusion and decides it proves that official doctrinal statements made by the general authorities are wrong, and they need to be corrected. Note this is not the same as disagreeing with a general authority.

For example there was a man in my ward who slowly over time came to the conclusion that he was a woman trapped in a man's body. He later claimed that God himself had appeared to him and told him that he was a crusader for others like him and that the church had failed to recognize the truth that he was being revealed by God.

I honestly saw alot of restraint and attempts at reconciliation on the part of the branch presidency and the stake presidency. In the end, this man simply would not acknowledge the authority of the general authorities and the rules regarding ordinances (sacraments) and he left the church.

I will agree with you Kat that when we insist others recognize our own ideas as doctrine, we run some terrible risks. It is better to suggest those ideas as possibilities, and if they ring true, the holy ghost will confirm the truthfulness of it. But ideas that rely on clever wording and passionate debate are rarely useful, and its typically best to just cling to what the scriptures and general authorities make abundantly plain.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Wouldn't that violate your apathy policy?
It's a kinder, gentler apathy which I represent. I don't have to be all up in your face about the fact that I'm apathetic; I'm content to uncare about things rather lazily.
Well-known plots and machinery would seem to indicate otherwise. [Razz]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well-known plots?

Eh, you don' know nuthin.'

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Uprooted
Member
Member # 8353

 - posted      Profile for Uprooted   Email Uprooted         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This talk was given in 1991, when President Hinckley was a counselor in the 1st presidency. Even he fell shy of saying that the doctrine is canonical, although he certainly endorsed it and he was the president of the Church when the aforementioned Proclamation was written which includes the words "Heavenly Parents":

quote:
“It was Eliza R. Snow who wrote the words: ‘Truth is reason; truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.’ (Hymns, 1985, no. 292.)

“It has been said that the Prophet Joseph Smith made no correction to what Sister Snow had written. Therefore, we have a Mother in Heaven. Therefore, [some assume] that we may appropriately pray to her.

“Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me.

(He went on to say that it is not appropriate to pray to our Heavenly Mother.)

I have this recollection that he's brought up this topic more recently in conference, but I can't find it anywhere. Then again, I may be crazy.

Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I DO think there are some doctrines which, while never explicitly stated, must logically follow from explicit doctrines.

If we can change "must logically follow" to "logically seem to follow", I'll agree.

[ May 08, 2007, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Wikipedia article brought up polygamy in a context I've never considered before. Is it a widely held belief that while it's important to avoid polygamy in this life due to social constraints, plural marriage is practiced in heaven?

The only reason I bring it up is because the Wiki article mentioned the possibility of there being more than one Heavenly Mother.

Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't know exactly how it happens in heaven. However, it is possible for a man to be sealed to more than one wife for eternity. My dad is sealed to both my mother and my step-mother.

No, I'm not terribly happy about it.

However, it wouldn't be heaven if it was a problem, so something there is going to give, I think. I leave open the possibility that it might be my feelings about it.

Posts: 26076 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Eh, you don' know nuthin.'

Well, yeah. What's that got to do with anything?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2