• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Discussion of the Thread: Porkchop & FFH

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
This (Porkchop & FFH) is going to be a fascinating debate, I'm sure.

I am especially interested in how FFH will respond to porkchop's statement that some Latter-day Saints believe the ancient prophets words to be "wrong, disputed, or not doctrinal." It's odd than in 58 years as a member of the Church, I have never heard this until now.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Katzpur said:
This (Porkchop & FFH) is going to be a fascinating debate, I'm sure.

I am especially interested in how FFH will respond to porkchop's statement that some Latter-day Saints believe the ancient prophets words to be "wrong, disputed, or not doctrinal." It's odd than in 58 years as a member of the Church, I have never heard this until now.
I think she is specifically talking about things that have been said by modern day prophets and apostles that are discounted by many of us as "merely their opinion".

The simple answer to the comparison to the Prophets in the Bible is that we have so little of what they said. The bits that were "merely their opinion" weren't recorded, whereas today, every word is recorded.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
I think responses like this (which have happened more than once) are confusing for non LDs people:


Quote:Originally Posted by porkchop
"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that?:confused: Interesting subject.
If it isn't found in our Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), it isn't doctrine. :)B.s

Taken from Porkchop got questions LDS dir.

It's as though what these people taught doesn't matter if it is not considered doctrine. I have even quoted from a sermon by Joseph Smith before and got a similar response.:confused:
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
*Paul* said:
I think responses like this (which have happened more than once) are confusing for non LDs people. It's as though what these people taught doesn't matter if it is not considered doctrine. I have even quoted from a sermon by Joseph Smith before and got a similar response.:confused:
I see what you're saying. Apparently I misunderstood what Porkchop was saying, but it appears as if FFH did, too. It looks as he and I both thought she was implying that we don't accept the words of the ancient prophets and apostles as valid.

Stop for a minute and consider just one of the many Old Testament Prophets: Noah. He was said to have lived for over 900 years. He was presumably a prophet of God for much of that time, but how many of Noah's words do we still have? Not many for someone who lived as long as he did. He must have had quite a bit to say over a 900-year period of time. I'm sure he probably spoke God's will to a lot of people in the years both before and after the Flood. He probably also stated his own personal opinion on occasion. When he spoke his own opinion, there may have been times when he was right; there were probably other times when he was wrong. We have no record of probably 99.99% of what Noah said during his 900+ years. We have only what was recorded and preserved as scripture.

Why should a modern-day prophet be held to a different standard than an ancient prophet? Joseph Smith was just a man. We believe God chose him to do an important work, but we don't believe that he was infallible. That is the very reason why we have a prescribed canon of those teachings that have been determined to be doctrinally binding. We believe that all of our prophets have been God's chosen servants and that He has spoken to them and directed the affairs of His Church through continued revelation. That is no reason to assume that everything any of them ever said is to be understood as being a statement from God himself. When someone posed the question you're now posing to Joseph Smith, he answered, "A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such."

There is not a Christian denomination on the face of the earth that does not have a defined set of beliefs. I've quite sure I've seen you say you have read a lot of Martin Luther's writings. Not everything he ever said is part of what the Lutheran Church believes today. No, he didn't claim to be a prophet but, he was indisputably the driving force behind the Protestant reformation. Like all other denominations, we Latter-day Saints reserve the right to define our own doctrine, and not to have others outside our faith try to define it for us. There is a very clearcut procedure by which doctrine is made officially binding upon the Latter-day Saints. (I can explain it if you're interested.)

If other people sincerely want to know what our doctrines are, they will stick to the material in our Standard Works (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and to the commentaries on these books which are written by our living prophet and apostles. They will not look to obscure books which are not and never have been a source for LDS doctrine or to books written by those who are not members of our Church, which quote from our leaders without fully understanding the LDS perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FFH

FFH

Veteran Member
I had an error in post 9, which I fixed, then slightly changed and added a few things...

I'm sure you will all find doctrinal mistakes concerning my answers...

Feel free to correct my understanding of these tough doctrinal questions and post them here....
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
FFH said:
I had an error in post 9, which I fixed, then slightly changed and added a few things...

I'm sure you will all find doctrinal mistakes concerning my answers...

Feel free to correct my understanding of these touch doctrinal questions and post them here....
Actually, I think you're doing a good job. Anyway, seeing as porkchop's not speaking to any of the rest of us, you've got a huge load to carry on your own. Good luck.

My only suggestion would be that you might want to ask porkchop what she believes a knowledge of good and evil is. It doesn't seem to me that a just and loving God would hold someone accountable for doing something evil (i.e. sinful) if that person did not know the difference between good and evil.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
FFH said:
I had an error in post 9, which I fixed, then slightly changed and added a few things...

I'm sure you will all find doctrinal mistakes concerning my answers...

Feel free to correct my understanding of these touch doctrinal questions and post them here....

I wouldn't assume I was necessarily talking about you FFH...

EDIT: (although I do think you are crazy most of the time) :)
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
*Paul* said:
I think responses like this (which have happened more than once) are confusing for non LDs people:


Quote:Originally Posted by porkchop
"Each god through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons or daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in condition to multiply forever and ever" Orson Pratt, the seer, pg37.
I read this in a book, i always had the impression that what i said above was the case and thought this backed it up, do you not think that?:confused: Interesting subject.
If it isn't found in our Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), it isn't doctrine. :)B.s

Taken from Porkchop got questions LDS dir.

It's as though what these people taught doesn't matter if it is not considered doctrine. I have even quoted from a sermon by Joseph Smith before and got a similar response.:confused:

It's a copout people use to avoid discussing things that they don't understand or agree with or want to agree with in public. Most of the stuff is brought up out of context anyway. I've used the copout before but have tried not to use it.

Some of the stuff that is brought up is opinion. I think a more accurate statement would be "Brigham Young, Joseph Smith [insert prophet's name here] may have believed that, but the church doesn't teach it and it isn't in our standard works, so it's probably not something that is essential to our salvation."

I personally enjoy discussing stuff like that as long as there is an understanding the my beliefs are my beliefs and not necessarily the "official" teachings of the church.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Katzpur said:
Actually, I think you're doing a good job. Anyway, seeing as porkchop's not speaking to any of the rest of us, you've got a huge load to carry on your own. Good luck.

My only suggestion would be that you might want to ask porkchop what she believes a knowledge of good and evil is. It doesn't seem to me that a just and loving God would hold someone accountable for doing something evil (i.e. sinful) if that person did not know the difference between good and evil.

Why isn't porkchop speaking to us? Did I miss something?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
jonny said:
Why isn't porkchop speaking to us? Did I miss something?
Uh... yeah. That's what you get for missing a day or two now and then. See Porkchop gots Questions (posts 62 and 69 especially). I actually don't have a clue as to what I might have done to offend her, but I managed somehow, I guess.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
jonny said:
Why isn't porkchop speaking to us? Did I miss something?

she may still be talking to you if you weren't in that thread. I think everyone else is pretty much in outer darkness now.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
comprehend said:
she may still be talking to you if you weren't in that thread. I think everyone else is pretty much in outer darkness now.

I didn't really follow that thread because I thought it was only for girls. I don't think I've ever made porkchop mad. I hope not.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
jonny said:
I didn't really follow that thread because I thought it was only for girls. I don't think I've ever made porkchop mad. I hope not.
The first question was, but the discussion branched off into other areas.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Posted by FFH:

We have a heavenly Mother and Father who created our spirits...

There is no scripture to support the fact that we have a heavenly Mother, tt's just understood that we do, because of the fact that no one can enter into the kingdom where our heavenly Father and Mother live without being sealed/married to a husband or wife in an LDS temple...

If we are required to do it, then surely our heavenly Father and Mother have done the same....


Is FFH saying God the Father got married/sealed in a temple? And doing this is essential to get into the kingdom where they are?

And by created our Spirits he means begat sexually within their marriage doesn't he?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
*Paul* said:
Is FFH saying God the Father got married/sealed in a temple? And doing this is essential to get into the kingdom where they are?
FFH would probably be in a better position to tell you what he meant than any of the rest of us could, so you may just want to ask him. However, I can tell you that we have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever concerning God's marriage or sealing. Anything anyone might say on the subject is pure conjecture. (Some Latter-day Saints are more inclined to conjecture than others. ;) ) We do believe that we have a Mother in Heaven and that she is our Father in Heaven's eternal companion. We know next to nothing about her. She is seldom, if ever, even alluded to in our worship services, although the hymn porkchop posted the words to is frequently sung (to a beautiful melody, I might add).

And by created our Spirits he means begat sexually within their marriage doesn't he?
I wouldn't venture a guess as to how a spirit is created. That's something I suppose you'd need to be God to know. The Bible does say, though, that God is the "Father of spirits" and that we are "His offspring." I don't know how other Christians interpret those words. We interpret them to mean that He is the Father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. Birth is a physical process that takes place in mortality. Since it follows a pregnancy of nine months, during which time the baby's body grows from a single cell to a point at which it can survive outside the womb, and since a spirit has no physical substance (flesh and bones), there is no reason at all to assume that it is created through the sex act.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Katzpur said:
FFH would probably be in a better position to tell you what he meant than any of the rest of us could, so you may just want to ask him. However, I can tell you that we have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever concerning God's marriage or sealing. Anything anyone might say on the subject is pure conjecture. (Some Latter-day Saints are more inclined to conjecture than others. ;) ) We do believe that we have a Mother in Heaven and that she is our Father in Heaven's eternal companion. We know next to nothing about her. She is seldom, if ever, even alluded to in our worship services, although the hymn porkchop posted the words to is frequently sung (to a beautiful melody, I might add).

I wouldn't venture a guess as to how a spirit is created. That's something I suppose you'd need to be God to know. The Bible does say, though, that God is the "Father of spirits" and that we are "His offspring." I don't know how other Christians interpret those words. We interpret them to mean that He is the Father of our spirits and that we are His offspring. Birth is a physical process that takes place in mortality. Since it follows a pregnancy of nine months, during which time the baby's body grows from a single cell to a point at which it can survive outside the womb, and since a spirit has no physical substance (flesh and bones), there is no reason at all to assume that it is created through the sex act.

a spirit has no physical substance?
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
*Paul* said:
Posted by FFH:




Is FFH saying God the Father got married/sealed in a temple? And doing this is essential to get into the kingdom where they are?

And by created our Spirits he means begat sexually within their marriage doesn't he?

Paul, how many times have you asked this question?
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
feo caritas said:
Paul, how many times have you asked this question?

You quoted two questions I asked there, which one do you mean? I may have asked if you believe our spirits are sexually begotten once but I am quite certain i have never asked the other question as I had never heard this said before.

If I have asked these several times then I apologise, your answers obviously are not sinking in and the idea must be rooted in my mind from somewhere.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
feo caritas said:
a spirit has no physical substance?

:confused: It has?? Can you measure it, weigh it, grab hold of it, reflect light off it, smell it does it produce sound waves without a physical medium?

Does Mormonism teach differently in this regard?
 
Top