You can follow IRR’s reviews of Gospel Principles at Gospel Principles: A Scripture Study Guide to the LDS Teaching Manual. And just as a reminder, MRM has a list of salient changes to the 2009 manual.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Maybe a slight correction is in need, I just began listening to this video and already found a slight error, it was stated that all Holy Angels will eventually have the opportunity to become physical beings.
Could anyone show where we teach this doctrine?
Janet.
See some LDS views on the general topic of angels here:
http://www.mrm.org/angels-and-humans
That was mildly entertaining, but I resent their condescending tone.
My concern is that the rest of the video also could have errors and misrepresentations like we find with the angels. The video claimed that all Holy Angels will eventually gain physical bodies, they claim that is what we teach as doctrine.
“Brigham Young, the second president of the LDS Church, claimed, “Angels are those beings who have been on an earth like this, and have passed through the same ordeals that we are now passing through…They are persons who have lived upon an earth, but did not magnify the Priesthood in that high degree that many others have done who have become Gods, even the sons of God. Human beings that pertain to this world, who do not magnify or are not capable of magnifying their high calling in the Priesthood and receive crowns of glory, immortality, and eternal lives, will also, when they again receive their bodies, become angels and will receive a glory” (Journal of Discourses, 9:102).”
Someone needs to point out misrepresentations when another is criticizing our doctrine.
Janet.
Janet wrote,
According to the LDS Bible Dictionary (under “Angels”):
The video says, “all the Holy angels will eventually get a chance to become physical beings.” Perhaps it could have been clearer by stating that some angels already have become physical beings, and some are awaiting the resurrection to regain their physical bodies, but it seems that all angels eventually do end up as physical beings. What am I missing?
Some important corrections:
The plan of salvation is Heavenly Father’s Plan. Jesus and Lucifer didn’t submit competing plans. Satan’s plan was in competition with the Fathers. Jesus honored the Father and His plan and was chosen as the Savior and Messiah.
Jesus and Lucifer were never “equals.” This is NOT LDS doctrine, nor is it believed by anybody I have ever known in the church. We vigorously maintain that Jesus, or Jehovah, was the firstborn Son of the Father, and was the highest Son of God, superior to all others, including Lucifer.
And concerning Jesus and Lucifer being “brothers”- one must understand what is meant in such a statement. Lucifer was among the inhabitants of heaven along with all of God’s children, including all of us. Jesus and Lucifer were not the only 2 sons of God- there were countless. Many Biblical scholars would agree with us that Lucifer originally had a fairly high status among the stars, or sons of God. He fell from his station as a result of his pride and rebellion. It is actually an archetypical, classic story. It was after his defeat there that “all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Job 38:7
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” Isaiah 14
From what or where did Lucifer fall? Certainly sounds like he was an inhabitant of heaven at some point. What is a “son of the morning?” There is actually a fair amount of glory and honor implied in that name.
I only watched the first video clip and found it to be like most others from LDS critics- many false representations of our doctrine along with lots of spin.
Janet, I really find it funny that you quote BY and you seem really sure you know what he meant, yet when it comes to BY and Adam God, Your sure you know BY did not mean what he said, Maybe BY’s truth will be reveled in full later. Just find it funny how mormons quote the leaders of old when it fits them, but when we do, LDS feel those leaders were not really fully speaking the truth.
OJ, I see you never replied to me or Dave, I showed you evidence of what I and others said, that you claimed was not there, and Dave stated you avoid questions which was what you accused us Christians of. Rick b
Smith taught different kinds of angels, all spirit offspring of [Adam-god]:
1. Disembodied spirits
a. (pre-existent?& just men)
b. (those ‘cast out’)
2. Translated People
3. Resurrected People
“Spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire and glory. Angels have advanced further, their light and glory being tabernacled and hence they appear in bodily shape. The spirits of just men are made ministering servants to those who are sealed unto life eternal..” (Teachings:191)
So any disembodied spirit, or tabernacled [resurrected] man could be an angel. Smith never explained Cherubim, or the winged angels from the Bible. Thus all ‘angels’ will have the opportunity to ‘become flesh’, or already have a body (translated) or (resurrected).
This is why smith says angels don’t have wings. [Refuted by the link Aaron provided above] This is why Satan & Jesus are brothers to mormons, cause as Young said: it doesn’t matter what god you worship since we are all one species & any one will do.
“An angel of God never has wings. Some will say that they have seen a spirit; that he offered them his hand, but they did not touch it. This is a lie. First, it is contrary to the plan of God; a spirit cannot come but in glory; an angel has flesh and bones; we see not their glory. (Teachings:91)
“Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but this is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead.” (Teachings:98)
“Gods have an ascendency over the angels, who are ministering servants. In the
resurrection, some are raised to be angels, [gophers forever?] others are raised to become Gods.” (Teachings:183)
Olsen,
Since Jesus was the ‘greatest’ of the sons of Adam-god, and if Adam-god had a brother in his mortal life who also became a god and had a spirit son he also named Jesus, then if these two Jesus’ got in an argument, which one would be the ‘most powerful’? Or are the cousin Jesus equals? Do they take their argument to a council of ‘higher’ gods to decide? (it can’t be angels, since the gods have “ascendency” over them)
And if all spirits were ‘intelligences’ once, and existed forever, would not Satan have been equal then to mormon jesus? Or is their some further back point that has not been revealed yet? Or is it when Adam-god had spirit jesus, he just happened to be the most intelligent of the intelligencies that Adam-god put a spirit body to?
At what point do the intelligencies have intelligence & are some ‘smarter’ than others & how do they get that way? Is there an intelligencies school (a pre-spirit school?)
Does Adam-god look at the ‘baby intelligences’ and pick and choose which would be born as spirit-jesus? And since this is done over and over throughout eternity, is there some kind of production line that produces these intelligencies? Perhaps that is the mystery of black holes? They produce Big bangs and intelligencies? Hey makes as much sense as smith’s logic. Mormon Doctrine spins itself.
I want to take this train of thought one step further. Is the plan of salvation really Adam-god’s plan? It could not be, because the gods of smith have been repeating the same scenario for all of eternity.
I wonder if ‘the gods’ keep records & histories, (do the ‘gopher-angels’ keep the records?) & is the very first god who thought up the plan of salvation listed in one of these books, (or maybe his home planet so we could visit him and verify that it was really his idea) or is the plan of salvation an eternal law that always existed from all eternity like the intelligencies of smith… and perhaps all of this, the intelligences, the law, the plan of salvation just sprang into existance on it’s own…
It really does take the concept of god to a new low, something that sprang out of a bunch of intelligencies in the primordial soup of the universe.
Compare this to the glory of our God, who created everything, is all powerful and loving & UNIQUE.
On the question/controversy of Jesus and Lucifer ever having been equals, find some food for thought in this Mormon Coffee article/thread from August 2008:
http://blog.mrm.org/2008/08/sons-of-god/
Well, technically in Mormonism they are ontological equals, having merely progressed differently based on their respective decisions. Satan could very well have become our Savior today if he had taken the path that our Elder Brother Jesus did, and Jesus could very well be our Satan today if he had taken the path Lucifer did. Both demons and gods are all of the same fundamental species according to Mormonism.
I have never seen anything in authoritative, institutional Mormonism that denies that they were, at some point in the past, equals in terms of their level of progression. So what if Jesus was the first born spirit child? Maybe the Mormon Jesus was a slower learner than Satan, and perhaps Satan and Jesus were, in a manner of speaking, equals in the 1st grade of spirit child school. I think all there is available on this subject is the opinions of members without any serious priesthood clout.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this mess, instead of leaving their members to fend for an area of theology that leaders won’t touch?
Take care,
Aaron
Think about that—in Mormonism, it’s a historical accident that Jesus, the first born spirit child, didn’t become a Satan. It was entirely unpredictable, since Jesus (as a newly conceived spirit child) didn’t have all of the developed attributes of deity in his fundamental nature.
Aaron,
Your bedrock arguments against the LDS Church lead you to such weak and unsubstantiated places. It is amazing that you spend so much time in such criticism when one sees where it leads you.
According to your theology, did Christ have agency during His life? If He did, then He could have, in theory, sinned and fallen and become a fallen being. If He didn’t have agency, then what was so great about His life if He had no choice in it?
See- makes no difference which side you take. You can twist things into ridiculous contingencies and what-ifs.
It is not an accident that Jesus was who He was. He was born to such a position. He chose and lived that position to the fullest extent possible. It is utterly preposterous to say that it was an “accident.”
If anything, it is the EV doctrine that portrays a God of chance and accidents. Who is saved according to you? Whom God chooses? Well, what criteria does He base such decisions upon? Talk about accidents.
Being of the same species does not mean two individuals are of the same greatness. We are the same species as God, but we have never been equal to Him. Similarly, Lucifer has never been equal to Jesus.
And by the way, can you point to anything in our scriptures or prophets that suggests that Jesus and Lucifer were ever equals? You will say “it is a natural conclusion if one carries LDS doctrine far enough.” In reality, yours are not “natural conclusions”- you are extremely biased and see only what you want to see. And this leads you to bizarre and loony intellectual places.
Funny how there is no “mess” seen by members of the church, only the one seen through the cynical eyes of those without faith.
Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by historical “accident”. I mean it in contrast to “ontological necessity”. In other words, it didn’t happy by necessity of nature.
Here’s another example of the language. Blake Ostler (Mormon philosopher) once said that the particular members of the Mormon Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are made up by historical “accident”. By that he didn’t mean they didn’t choose to be together. He just meant that they weren’t already necessarily in relationship by their own nature.
So yes, in Mormonism it really was an “accident” (in this aforementioned sense) brought about by unpredictable choice (that’s the key phrase here).
The discussion of the impeccability of the human nature of Jesus is a separate one in classical Christianity, because we are talking about deity / divine nature. This is a problem for you, not us, because in Mormonism human nature and divine nature fundamentally are one nature, not two natures.
Says who? Like I said above, this sort of thing is just your opinion. It is notable you are not providing an authoritative reference. Without one, we are just left with traditional Mormon theology’s implications: We could very well have been equal with God in level of progression at various stages in the pre-mortal existence, particularly
in our state as intelligences.
You can keep saying that over and over, my friend, but we’ll need something more compelling. Thus far, the theological worldview has disconcerting implications that people seem to put on the shelf out of emotional necessity, not logical necessity.
Elsewhere on Facebook, a Mormon is arguing that Moses 4:1-2 means God the Father gave Jesus a special nature at spirit-birth that he didn’t give Lucifer or anyone else.
I responded:
I’m going to assume you are not interpreting Moses 4 to speak of the Father having predestined his firstborn spirit child to perform like he did. Even if you are not, and if you are speaking of a kind of foreordination by foreknoweldge, the point still stands. Any kind of knowledge of the future choices of the Son’s choices would, if to be consistent with Mormonism, have to be predictable by a kind of direct foresight, not by a predictability based on the Son’s divine nature. If you believe the Son’s eternal-past choices have always been predictable based alone on his divine nature, then you have unwittingly rejected your own Mormon principle of free agency. The fundamental meaning of “free agency” (as Mormonism has affirmed it) is that one’s nature doesn’t necessitate that you choose the right.
If you’re saying that God the Father actually gave Jesus, from the beginning, a species or nature that he didn’t give Lucifer, then you’re promoting something Moses 4 doesn’t specifically say or imply, and you’ll have to provide another reference. Last I checked, Jesus, Lucifer, and you and I are all of the same fundamental species according to Mormonism, and Lucifer’s status quo is due to his choices, not to getting jipped with a second-rate nature at spirit-birth.
I should add that Ostler’s above noted comment about the Godhead being a historical “accident” was in the context of a panel discussion with a non-Mormon open theist. An open theist is a person who doesn’t believe that God knows the definite future. Even this open theist said that God is loving by his essential nature, i.e. that God can’t not love because that is what he IS.
Ostler argued that the Mormon God is not essentially loving (i.e. loving by essence), because for Ostler that would mean that God didn’t have all the ability and opportunity to choose not to love.
Apply all this to the question of whether the Mormon Jesus could have become a Satan, and it will hopefully make more sense.
Put more succinctly:
“Some Mormons think what I’ve said here is refuted by Moses 4:1-2, but that only really points to the idea that the Father foreknew what kind of choices the Son would make, not that his nature alone necessitated that he wouldn’t turn out to be a kind of Satan.”
I’m not objecting to the exploration of the Biblical view of angels and demons. It is clear that scripture regards them as being subordinate to God, and to His Christ. Jesus earned a reputation for driving out demons (Mark 1:39), and God will crush Satan under our feet (Romans 16:20). Also, Jesus is not in the same “class” as Angels (Heb 1:3-4).
However, exactly where Angels and demons come from and exactly how they interact with human beings seems less clear. The Bible describes them as a present reality, but its references to their origins are cryptic. The reason, I believe, is that it is not of central importance to the Biblical agenda.
When moving from what is obviously on the Biblical agenda to what isn’t, we are urged to be circumspect, as Paul writes
(1 Tim 1:3-7)
What a shame that the LDS prophets will not heed Paul’s advice, as they devote themselves to a controversial angel-ology that strokes their own egos.
OJ commented
That’s because we don’t have “faith” in your church, or its core doctrine that “the LDS Church is true, whatever it teaches”.
Maybe it would become less of a mess if you disentangle what Mormonism teaches from the what the Bible teaches, and accept that the two theologies/worldviews are mutually exclusive
Jim,
“Who is saved according to you? Whom God chooses? Well, what criteria does He base such decisions upon? Talk about accidents.”
So the wisdom of The Almighty is reduced to “accidents”? Your desire to turn an argument around on your opponent, despite the validity of such claims, is weak and dare I say lame; you tried it before with exaggerating God thread and it was eqauly lame there. Our Christ is ontologically different from you, me, and Lucifer – no accident there.
Where has this:
“Similarly, Lucifer has never been equal to Jesus”
Ever been taught in Mormondum? If Jesus and Lucifer are/were spirit brothers then before either had done anything wrong, like when they were children, they would have been equal. Do you deny the validity of that assessment?
No two children are equal at birth in any respect disregarding family means/country/etc in which they are born. We are all unique in our attributes and character and this starts from birth. For instance some are born with white muscle while some with red muscle (slow twitch and fast twitch) this makes a big difference in athletic abilities. Some are born with more muscle mass than others. Some are born with more brain neurons than others (although they may not use them in later life). Some are born with more receptors in their brains that make them vulnerable to drug dependency. Need I go on?
This is the same with our spirits, they are all individual and unique in attributes and character so no one is on the same level. However, unlike this world, in the premortal existence we all had the same opportunities to learn and develop and grow. This made the differences greater/more noticeable. So no one was on the same level as anyone else in the premortal existence – but Jesus was, as the PoGP says, more intelligent than all together. This verse in itself shows official doctrine that Jesus and Lucifer were never on the same level.
Aaron,
What about Christ’s abilitiy to sin while on earth? Was that possible in your theology? You didn’t answer that question. It is no different than the road you are going down with our doctrine.
You seem to have an intelligent and inquisitive mind. But in all honesty, your bent on finding fault in our theology seems to take you places that can only be described as foolish. If I spent the time, I am confident I could come up with equally heretical implications within and extrapolations from your theology- things that you would absolutely deny.
Tell me something. Jesus being ontologically of a superior species- why so important to you? We believe He has always been superior to any other child of God (the onus is on you to show we have taught anything else if such is what you claim- our scriptures are clear on the matter). Why does it matter so much to you? We esteem Him as the Savior and Redeemer of the World (and many other worlds) and the only means of Salvation- a perfect, sinless, and all-powerful God. Why is it so important to you that we are of a different species?
It seems to me most of your issues with LDS doctrine come down to the doctrine of exaltation and deification- something about the idea that we are literally God’s children upsets and really gets to you. I have not yet figured out why that is so abhorent to you. While you insist on seeing only the blasphemous angles of such a belief, there are other beautiful and logical (and historical) perspecives, but which you seem absolutely unwilling to consider or see.
I read the comments by the Mormons and it sounds like amateur night down at the wards. Were that they were merely engaging in idle speculation on some trivial matter of little consequence. I read what they write and what their “prophets” wrote and feel like I should take part in some type of cleansing ritual.
I’m back to Romans 1:18-23 where Paul describes these folks; “…..that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools….”
Mormons will never “get” the Bible and what it teaches because they don’t know the God who reveals Himself in the Scriptures. They’ve got it all flipped and 180 degrees out of phase. As long as they are willing to follow false prophets and their teachings, their minds will continue to be darkened and their hearts hardened against the One true God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Olsen,
As I said above:
Olsen said,
Why, because spirit birth-order secures spiritual primacy of growth? I’m still waiting for a reference. As I said before,
Ralph said,
Ralph, where in the verse does it say that Jesus had *always been* more intelligent than the others? It seems you are reading the past tense into the present tense.
This whole discussion reminds me of those Mormons who insist that “we Mormons” believe the “official doctrine” that God never sinned, when in reality they are projecting what they want their Church official doctrine to be instead of basing their pronunciation on an authoritative institutional reading of any scriptures in question.
Take care,
Aaron
I thought I might comment on the Jesus and Lucifer being “equals” issue. I found a few problems with the videos, but this was not that problematic. They just need to clarify on what they mean by “equals.”
I know they are stating to try and discount LDS doctrine, but the scriptures shed light on this issue. I would say that our doctrine doesn’t really clarify that at the very moment that Jesus and Lucifer were begotten as spirit sons – whether they were on equal ground in terms of intelligence or light. Aaron is right that the scriptures do not say Jesus had “always been” more intelligent than the others.
There are very few scriptures regarding the beginning of spirits. Here is one of the most enlightening ones – D&C 93:38:
Every spirit of man (including Jesus and Lucifer) were innocent in the beginning. Now, we know that level of progression and intelligence is different than one’s innocence. For example, LDS doctrine teaches, as stated above, that every man and woman born into mortality becomes innocent again (like they were at the beginning of their spirit existence), but one’s level of progression is just a continuation of their progression from pre-mortality, which is of varied degree. In other words, although every man and woman comes to this earth on varied degrees of intelligence or light (according to their obedience to eternal law in pre-mortality) EACH person comes to earth innocent, or with a clean slate, to work out their own salvation. Each person, no matter how obedient they were in pre-mortality, can achieve exaltation if they so choose.
Therefore, both Jesus and Lucifer were innocent in the beginning as spirits (at spirit birth, if you will). So in terms of innocence, yes, Jesus and Lucifer were, you could say, equals.
Then again, you could apply the same principle to mortal birth. LDS doctrine, as explained in the above scripture, states that every man and woman born to mortality is innocent again, because God redeemed man from the fall, or the Atonement. Therefore, you could say, Mother Theresa and Hitler were innocent in the beginning as mortals. At birth, in terms of innocence, they were both equals. But LDS doctrine on pre-mortal progression would insinuate they were not equals in terms of their propensity to righteousness. I only apply the principle to mortality, because spirit birth and life is very similar to mortal birth and life – in principle.
Now, whether Jesus and Lucifer were equals “in the beginning” in terms of intelligence/light – you cannot state one way or the other, with what has been revealed. I’m sure Orson Pratt and many others would say, OF COURSE NOT – especially when you read his writings about progression PRIOR to spirit birth as intelligences. But this is all speculation. You get into very murky territory concerning existence, life, and progression prior to “organization” or birth as spirits.
So, to summarize and clarify, the only way you could state Jesus and Lucifer were equals is to say in terms of innocence, “in the beginning.” I hope that convoluted and complicated answer helps to clarify the LDS position, using LDS scripture.
You certainly have managed to be more honest and forthright on this issue than BYU professor Robert Millet, who receives a full-time salary to teach theology and do interfaith dialog.
Here is McConkie’s take on Cain and how even though he was an ally of Satan, he was still was blessed by God to come to earth & gain a body:
“Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth…. he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel….
As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones to eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958. p.l02).
Who was really in charge in heaven? Why would God allow Cain to be born to become evil & a Son of Perdition? Didn’t God know Cain was already evil? What a lame God the Mormons worship. Why would he do this? These senseless ramblings of so-called Apostles and Prophets show how little sense Mormon Doctrine makes.
From this pre-existant nonsense sprang the racist doctrine of the Mormon Church against the blacks. Seems the Mormon Apostles will invent any story to support Smith & Young in their prejudices. It would seem to me that God would not ‘bless’ those that sided with Satan with anything, but the Mormon Authorities had to invent some story to support their racist doctrines against blacks. Like Satan & Jesus, this makes little sense except to justify the false god doctrines of Smith.