LDS doctrine of “intelligences”

Bonnie

Super Member
Bruce R. McConkie

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter," the Prophet tells us. "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." (D. & C. 131:7-8.) This spirit element has always existed; it is co-eternal with God. (Teachings, pp. 352-354.) It is also called intelligence or the light of truth, which "was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D. & C. 93:29.)


Speaking of pre-existent spirits, Abraham calls them "the intelligences that were organized before the world was." (Abra. 3:22-24.) Thus, portions of the self-existent spirit element are born as spirit children, or in other words the intelligence which cannot be created or made, because it is self-existent, is organized into intelligences. ("Spirit Element," in Mormon Doctrine, p. 751)
In LDS theology--WHO organized matter into "intelligences"?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Hi Aaron,

I enjoy reading and studying history, not only Mormonism but other history’s, like WW2. So whether we discuss it personally your not, I’ll continue to study on my own or with anyone that will listen and want to discuss it. I love the discussion, You can discuss away and we can compare what the church presents and teaches, to how you make this doctrine work for you. My goal here, as always is to help folks, either LDS or not, see what the church teaches…after that they can make their own choice, I am nobody's HS.

It really isn’t as deep as you might think it is. If you are a “student” of Mormon history and LDS doctrine, it is really THE key piece to the puzzle in understanding the continuation of seeds and progression as taught by JS and other early GA. Using a Disney Lion King theme as a example, it completes the “circle of life” story, in that it is basically what “The Law of Eternal Progression “ is, as taught in LDS thought as “the continuation of seeds.”
??? I find it interesting that you claim to have THE key piece of the puzzle when you quoted: "writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed".
Your certainty is as feeble as your narrative. You have the audacity to the you have THE answer, when prophets say THEY don't have the answer. Don't you think there's a little humility required here in your certainty? Is it ok if we simply accept your understanding as a plausible interpretation, or are you going to say your interpretation is the only possible interpretation - therefore corrupt?
As and example of this being a key part of the puzzle, and you may not even realize it, but the D&C (93:36) verse you cite in your signature is in regards to this first stage of progression. If you choose to delve into this topic, read the chapter and title heading in full and you will see this is true, verse 29 is key. Cross reference Abraham 3 with it, then start reading some of the quotes I have given you in the thread. The “intelligence of God,” as taught in LDS theology, and the standard words, is the eternal matter that has always existed along with man.
Per your own citation in the OP, that's one of three definitions:
Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth that gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.
This matter, not being a “it” but a “he”…is then organized into a spirit body in the next estate, by a HF and a HM, born and begotten, and reared to maturity in many mansions, until it is time these spirits receive a mortal tabernacle and are born to earthly parents…and so on and on.
That's one interpretation.
Other interpretations hinge on the definition of "begotten". Go back to D&C 93:
22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.
How is one begotten through Christ? Does that require a sexual act? No.
JS says man exists on a self-existent principle.
Now let's look at the TG references of "intelligence":
  • Intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence, D&C 88:40.
  • All intelligence is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, D&C 93:30.
So if these two scriptures are true, what role did God play in our creation? Organizing intelligence via sexual relation with HM, or placing us in an environment where He believes the most good would come out of it? You believe the former, I believe the latter.
You may not buy into this, I hope you don’t, but my goal is to present what the church teaches the most accurately I can here…
But you don't, though. Anything else presented contrary to your understanding is considered "watered-down." It's vital to your narrative for LDS doctrine to be presented in the worst way possible to justify your position. You're intrinsically motivated for the doctrine to be corrupt, and the means to achieve that isn't by truth, but appeal to authority.
in that it is a LDS forum, and I enjoy discussing it, and yes it is a crock too me, but it does not mean I do not enjoy the study, I find it a fascinating bunch of crock. And I find it equally interesting that todays average Mormon does not have a clue of what the church teaches. Bit, don’t fool yourself that doctrines like this are no longer taught, because they are, they are just watered down by the GA who talk to the folks like they are in primary, especially in GC.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
I am familiar with the TNG episode, I am a TNG junkie, LOL…being a Ex-Borg Morg. But I will watch it again tonight and comment more.
I'm glad we have something in common. :)
Mag’s has great advice in quieting the voices and focus on what is good, which is God. I know when life builds up around me I do better when I listen.
If only the advice could be considered both ways.
Thanks for your honesty
No prob ;)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
That’s just not true…not even remotely true. If you believe I was taught half the stuff I know now about the church you are mistaken. Especially in full context. I have spent the past 30 years reading through GA books and teaching manuals, and periodicals to get to the bottom of what i was generally taught. Your statement is just not true Aaron.

Don’t confuse my disagreeing what is, and what is not, Mormonism with not agreeing what you believe it to be. I am claiming and I believe showing you that there is a systematic approach to Mormonism, and it is a simple general story…with uncountable complex rabbit trails, but the plan of salvation outline is simple, and easy to follow if you want to understand it.

I get you want folks to approve what you believe, but that is unrealistic. It does not mean they don’t understand your takes on it, or respect the right you have to share it, it means they disagree with it. It is no different that you disagreeing with the triune nature of God (Trinity)…you state over and over you don’t buy it, and that s okay, I don’t need you to buy it, for it to be a firm foundation in my faith. And like wise you should not expect Christians to agree with your ”faith”…it is just not practical, unless you are humanist of sorts, which a Christian is not.
I appreciate your sentiments, but why it is you'll buy into your 30 years of study as THE authoritative absolute interpretation, of which you don't believe, but ignore a more plain and precious principle:
Jacob 4:
14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Why not stick with what you KNOW to be true, rather than dwell on the mysteries which you don't believe?
 

Markk

Active member
In LDS theology--WHO organized matter into "intelligences"?
What is ironic is most every LDS I have talked to on the subject will insist that spirits are not created, and that all matter is eternal, yet when shown the doctrine of “intelligences” and the ego of man as taught by the church, and that this matter was organized into a spirit body by a HF and a HM (begotten and born)…they basically run, as this thread shows. They often scoff at ex-nilhilo, that God can create out of nothing, meaning create matter, but when shown what the church has and does teach about matter being organized…they are more or less silent.

But to your question in a LDS construct it always existed. The material matter of spirits, earths, animals, vegetables…etc, all existed, it just needs to be organized.

With that thought in mind, everything will also need to die and be resurrected, including the earth and other planets.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
What he was taught, and what he has studied about it, is mormonism. That’s the way it was taught by Mormon leaders down the line. He has shown you that over and over. Just because you don’t want to believe mormonism the way it was presented by your prophets doesn’t mean that isn’t what it was based on. You’re the one who is trying to change it.
Of which, as mentioned in previous conversations led to bad fruits, so things got changed up, and now everything is considered"watered-down" rather than core theology.
You feel bad about spiritually misleading people by going on an LDS mission right? You're understanding changed and evolved personally changed, right? Who's to say that the people that taught you and gave you the Mormon narrative that you embrace has charged, or would change if only you had the chance to ask them the questions that I ask you, showing the contradiction in that narrative?
Well, the church has embraced it, and they recognize the church acts with the best of intentions, but are yet fallible, and BRM himself, the author of "Mormon Doctrine" says "don't trust our philosophies but take the Spirit as your guide."
Your own words show it. You’re flitting here and there to different doctrines and philosophies, trying to make things fit in your head. Trying to make mormonism work in different ways. Blaming your typos on the universe shifting your words.

No. He brings peace in the middle of the storm. He said “Come unto me and I will give you peace.”
I'm sorry, Mags. You really don't know what's in my head, and you simply can't relate to my experience.
 

Markk

Active member
??? I find it interesting that you claim to have THE key piece of the puzzle when you quoted: "writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed".
Your certainty is as feeble as your narrative. You have the audacity to the you have THE answer, when prophets say THEY don't have the answer. Don't you think there's a little humility required here in your certainty? Is it ok if we simply accept your understanding as a plausible interpretation, or are you going to say your interpretation is the only possible interpretation - therefore corrupt?
Well we can certainly look at the ”fragments”…and you can start with my OP, and we can go through the different teachings.

There is no doubt it is a teaching…I found this on FAIR awhile back. A presentation on being a LDS Women…she starts out her presentation with the following, which is exactly on point with what I am saying and what the church teaches…so it is not like I am making this up Aaron…

“I’m going to start out by talking about the doctrine of intelligences. This is, I think, unique to Mormonism. It talks about that we existed as intelligences and that it can’t be created and it can’t be made. We’ve always existed in this way. But, we chose to ally ourselves with God. We had personality and we had volition, and we chose to ally ourselves with a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who could put us on the road to exaltation.

So, they gave us a spirit body. And they made the opportunity for us to get a mortal, physical body. And then through the work of the atonement, through Jesus Christ, He gave us the ability to have a resurrected body, and to have exaltation and eternal life. This kind of progression that we are on starts off with an intelligence. This is just my word, but I’m going to call that the First Self. My First Self has a personality that is completely unique. There is nobody that has the combination of gifts and individuality that I have or that you have. And that’s important because it’s the core of who I am. And it has always existed.”


This is what the current teaching from a LDS teaching manual…Gospel Principle chapter 2. This compliment my OP, 100% and the other quotes I offered. It is a key piece, it is the beginning o the plan of salvation, and it starts in the standard works, even the verse in your signature line.

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father . All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God . “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335) .


It it th only interpretation? Certainly not, people can believe what they may, but it is a church teaching 100%. “Man was with God in the beginning and born as spirts to HF and HM. “
 

Markk

Active member
Per your own citation in the OP, that's one of three definitions:
Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are: (1) It is the light of truth that gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed. (2) The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God. (3) The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children.
Yes, and context,, and citation form GA, agree with my interpretation.
 

Markk

Active member
That's one interpretation.
Other interpretations hinge on the definition of "begotten". Go back to D&C 93:
22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.
How is one begotten through Christ? Does that require a sexual act? No.
JS says man exists on a self-existent principle.
Now let's look at the TG references of "intelligence":
  • Intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence, D&C 88:40.
  • All intelligence is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, D&C 93:30.
So if these two scriptures are true, what role did God play in our creation? Organizing intelligence via sexual relation with HM, or placing us in an environment where He believes the most good would come out of it? You believe the former, I believe the latter.
Well, you are simply searching for a way out of what is taught…see post #1 and #26 (Gospel Principles) …born and begotten, and raised to maturity, is very clear. These are teaching, and I am just quoting them.

You can believe the latter, great, but you can’y back that up with any LDS teaching, or explain section 131 and 132 in any context.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Of which, as mentioned in previous conversations led to bad fruits, so things got changed up, and now everything is considered"watered-down" rather than core theology.
You feel bad about spiritually misleading people by going on an LDS mission right? You're understanding changed and evolved personally changed, right?
I realized that mormonism was false. It didn’t come from Christ.

Who's to say that the people that taught you and gave you the Mormon narrative that you embrace has charged, or would change if only you had the chance to ask them the questions that I ask you, showing the contradiction in that narrative?
That makes no sense at all.

Well, the church has embraced it, and they recognize the church acts with the best of intentions, but are yet fallible, and BRM himself, the author of "Mormon Doctrine" says "don't trust our philosophies but take the Spirit as your guide."
God is not chaos. Mormonism didn’t come from Him.

I'm sorry, Mags. You really don't know what's in my head, and you simply can't relate to my experience.
I see what you post here, your words are the evidence.
 

Markk

Active member
JS says man exists on a self-existent principle.
Now let's look at the TG references of "intelligence":
  • Intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence, D&C 88:40.
  • All intelligence is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, D&C 93:30.
So if these two scriptures are true, what role did God play in our creation? Organizing intelligence via sexual relation with HM, or placing us in an environment where He believes the most good would come out of it? You believe the former, I believe the latter.
JS does teach that, that is clear.

This is how the TG reads in fulll context;

  • See also God, Glory of; God, Intelligence of; God, Omniscience of; Knowledge; Light [noun]; Light of Christ; Man, Antemortal Existence of; Understanding; Wisdom
  • intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence, D&C 88:40.
  • Intelligence … was not created or made, D&C 93:29.
  • All truth is independent … intelligence also, D&C 93:30.
  • glory of God is intelligence, D&C 93:36.
  • Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, D&C 130:18.
  • Lord … more intelligent than they all, Abr. 3:19.
  • I rule … over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen, Abr. 3:21.
  • shown unto me … the intelligences that were organized, Abr. 3:22.
  • See also Isa. 55:8–9.

D&C 93 :29 reads…in context to Intelligence that is neither created or made.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

88:40 is in regards to eternal laws and truth…two different contexts, yet they tie together in that like the intelligence (ego of man) of mankind, the eternal ego that co exists with God, are eternal truths…JS called this the “light of truth.”

So if these two scriptures are true, what role did God play in our creation? Organizing intelligence via sexual relation with HM, or placing us in an environment where He believes the most good would come out of it? You believe the former, I believe the latter.

Again you can certainly believe what you like, but the church as taught that the internal intelligences were ”begotten, born, and reared to maturity. ”

This is how it was taught in one LDS teaching manual…speaking of the 1st estate of unorganized intelligences.

“The next realm where man dwelt was the spirit world. According to Mormon concept eternally-existing intelligences were clothed with spirit bodies in the mansion of their Eternal Father. As was definitely pointed out in an earlier chapter, numerous sons and daughters were begotten and born of heavenly parents into that eternal family in the spirit world. In the likeness of God Himself, these spirit children were organized, possessing divine, eternal, and godlike attributes, inherited from their Heavenly Father and Mother. There in the spirit world they were reared to maturity, becoming grown spirit men and women prior to coming upon this earth.” GTTA Hunter
 

Markk

Active member
I appreciate your sentiments, but why it is you'll buy into your 30 years of study as THE authoritative absolute interpretation, of which you don't believe, but ignore a more plain and precious principle:
Jacob 4:
14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Why not stick with what you KNOW to be true, rather than dwell on the mysteries which you don't believe?
I have no idea what this verse has to do with LDS teachings on the 1st estate of man? None of this is true Aaron, it is just nonsense IMO…from the imagination of JS.

I am giving you teaching after teaching from LDS GA…and whether you believe it or not, is not important in regards to telling the truth as to what the church teaches, not a theory that you created and can’t back up as a teaching.

Are really denying that these teaching I quote weren’t taught? Don’t you think it is important to acknowledge what the church teaches, even if you disagree with it? I do.
 

Markk

Active member
But you don't, though. Anything else presented contrary to your understanding is considered "watered-down." It's vital to your narrative for LDS doctrine to be presented in the worst way possible to justify your position. You're intrinsically motivated for the doctrine to be corrupt, and the means to achieve that isn't by truth, but appeal to authority.
Such as? You admitted what you believe can’t be backed with a GA teaching. I ask BoJ over and over to do so and he dug himself so deep in a hole he bailed out of the conversation.

Present me with GA teaching or teaching manuals that back your thought, and if you do I have no problem saying it was taught?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Well we can certainly look at the ”fragments”…and you can start with my OP, and we can go through the different teachings.

There is no doubt it is a teaching…I found this on FAIR awhile back. A presentation on being a LDS Women…she starts out her presentation with the following, which is exactly on point with what I am saying and what the church teaches…so it is not like I am making this up Aaron…

“I’m going to start out by talking about the doctrine of intelligences. This is, I think, unique to Mormonism. It talks about that we existed as intelligences and that it can’t be created and it can’t be made. We’ve always existed in this way. But, we chose to ally ourselves with God. We had personality and we had volition, and we chose to ally ourselves with a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother who could put us on the road to exaltation.

So, they gave us a spirit body. And they made the opportunity for us to get a mortal, physical body. And then through the work of the atonement, through Jesus Christ, He gave us the ability to have a resurrected body, and to have exaltation and eternal life. This kind of progression that we are on starts off with an intelligence. This is just my word, but I’m going to call that the First Self. My First Self has a personality that is completely unique. There is nobody that has the combination of gifts and individuality that I have or that you have. And that’s important because it’s the core of who I am. And it has always existed.”


This is what the current teaching from a LDS teaching manual…Gospel Principle chapter 2. This compliment my OP, 100% and the other quotes I offered. It is a key piece, it is the beginning o the plan of salvation, and it starts in the standard works, even the verse in your signature line.

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father . All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God . “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335) .


It it th only interpretation? Certainly not, people can believe what they may, but it is a church teaching 100%. “Man was with God in the beginning and born as spirts to HF and HM. “
Yeah, it's churches teaching. I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean they teach soup to nuts on the subject.
Certainly, you can appreciate the simplicity in basic concepts taught to children, that comes as a guideline as the understanding matures.
The problem is when we make postulations on simple truths and then declare them doctrine. Even the temple teaches not to accept "philosophies of men mingled with scripture."
JS does teach that, that is clear.

This is how the TG reads in fulll context;



D&C 93 :29 reads…in context to Intelligence that is neither created or made.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

88:40 is in regards to eternal laws and truth…two different contexts, yet they tie together in that like the intelligence (ego of man) of mankind, the eternal ego that co exists with God, are eternal truths…JS called this the “light of truth.”

Again you can certainly believe what you like, but the church as taught that the internal intelligences were ”begotten, born, and reared to maturity. ”
Yes. And then more evolution of thought occured.
This is how it was taught in one LDS teaching manual…speaking of the 1st estate of unorganized intelligences.

“The next realm where man dwelt was the spirit world. According to Mormon concept eternally-existing intelligences were clothed with spirit bodies in the mansion of their Eternal Father. As was definitely pointed out in an earlier chapter, numerous sons and daughters were begotten and born of heavenly parents into that eternal family in the spirit world. In the likeness of God Himself, these spirit children were organized, possessing divine, eternal, and godlike attributes, inherited from their Heavenly Father and Mother. There in the spirit world they were reared to maturity, becoming grown spirit men and women prior to coming upon this earth.” GTTA Hunter
I'm starting to question if it was a teaching manual, I haven't seen evidence to that. Regardless, it says explicitly:
“This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company.”
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I have no idea what this verse has to do with LDS teachings on the 1st estate of man? None of this is true Aaron, it is just nonsense IMO…from the imagination of JS.
I'm putting the subject of "intelligence" in the framework of Mormonism.
Like most antis, you start at the end, and work backwards. That's what's nonsense.
I am giving you teaching after teaching from LDS GA…and whether you believe it or not, is not important in regards to telling the truth as to what the church teaches, not a theory that you created and can’t back up as a teaching.
Some GA taught it, big whoop. So what? No one is disputing man is made from intelligence and eternal.
Are really denying that these teaching I quote weren’t taught? Don’t you think it is important to acknowledge what the church teaches, even if you disagree with it? I do.
No, I'm not denying it. I mean if you have a quote. I guess it's obvious. But Im tracing the authority of the teaching back beyond just the GA title.
We already existed, but then we were clothed with spirit bodies. How does that work? Please distinguish the exact difference what a spirit body consists of separate from the intelligence it is made of.
The difference between you and me is you rely on the arm of the flesh for understanding, I rely on the Spirit. You fell away. I didn't.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Such as? You admitted what you believe can’t be backed with a GA teaching. I ask BoJ over and over to do so and he dug himself so deep in a hole he bailed out of the conversation.
Anything that focuses on the Doctrine of Christ, you consider "watered down".
I focus on the basics, which is easily supported by many, many sources.
When we get into the deep doctrines as we hie to Kolob, yeah, that's not backed, nor do I expect it to, since Adam God was generally rejected by the Church.
Present me with GA teaching or teaching manuals that back your thought, and if you do I have no problem saying it was taught?
Well, I have no problem citing authority of the foundations from which I derive my belief. I just can't see how useful it would be, since you don't believe it anyway. The best response I could expect in return is "That's nice. Whatever."
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Anything that focuses on the Doctrine of Christ, you consider "watered down".
I focus on the basics, which is easily supported by many, many sources.
When we get into the deep doctrines as we hie to Kolob, yeah, that's not backed, nor do I expect it to, since Adam God was generally rejected by the Church.

Well, I have no problem citing authority of the foundations from which I derive my belief. I just can't see how useful it would be, since you don't believe it anyway. The best response I could expect in return is "That's nice. Whatever."

The issue is not whether we personally "believe" what you do.
The issue is AUTHORITY.
What are your authoritative sources through which you determined your beliefs?
And will you accept those sources, even if they teach beliefs you don't like?

And of course, since the Bible is part of the Standard works, you have to account for that, and the Bible is NO friend to Mormonism.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I'm putting the subject of "intelligence" in the framework of Mormonism.
Like most antis, you start at the end, and work backwards. That's what's nonsense.

Some GA taught it, big whoop. So what? No one is disputing man is made from intelligence and eternal.

No, I'm not denying it. I mean if you have a quote. I guess it's obvious. But Im tracing the authority of the teaching back beyond just the GA title.
We already existed, but then we were clothed with spirit bodies. How does that work? Please distinguish the exact difference what a spirit body consists of separate from the intelligence it is made of.
The difference between you and me is you rely on the arm of the flesh for understanding, I rely on the Spirit. You fell away. I didn't.

Oh, but you have fallen away. You just don’t realize it yet.

You claim to understand by the “Spirit,” not the arm of flesh. But what you call the arm of flesh is actual Mormon doctrine you were taught, and has been shown to you here. You have rejected it and created your own belief system that you’ve rationalized as still being mormonism. But it’s not.

Your own words tell the tale. You don’t believe Mormon doctrine. That’s the good news. But you’ve tried to morph it into something you can believe and still stay in it. That’s the not-so-good news, because you’re stuck in between mormonism and what Christ actually taught.

Take the leap of faith to Him, Aaron.
 

Markk

Active member
I'm starting to question if it was a teaching manual, I haven't seen evidence to that. Regardless, it says explicitly:
“This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company.”

Aaron, do your homework. Almost all books printed by Deseret Books have this standard copy right stamp. And originally, th effort addition was printed by a company called Steven and Wallis, per the link below out of the Era article. And this link. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6489134M/The_gospel_through_the_ages



Here is a paste from the book …

MILTON R. HUNTER
of the First Council of the Seventy Written and published under the direction of the General Priesthood Committee of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Deseret Book Company
Salt Lake City, Utah


TO THE QUORUMS OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD The gospel of Jesus Christ was taught to Adam. This is a unique doctrine among the world's followers of Christ. Yet it is one of the basic truths revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith by the Eternal Father.

THE GOSPEL THROUGH THE AGES will prove to be a timely, instructive and stimulating course of study. Its value, however, will extend beyond its immediate use as a Priesthood quorum study course. Students of the Gospel will find it invaluable as a reference book. In fact, every home might well consider it a valuable addition to the family library for the use of young and old. EZRA TAFT BENSON

THE GOSPEL THROUGH THE AGES . . . is based upon the doctrine, unique to Mormonism, that the Gospel was revealed to Adam, the first man. The author proceeds to show how that man, yielding to the temptations of the evil one, soon corrupted the simple doctrines of the Gospel, and that this explains the fragments of truth found in nearly all religions. Such departure from the original and later revelations led to a succession of apostasies from and restorations of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, culminating in the last restoration in these days. In developing this historical truth, nearly every gospel principle is passed in review. It is a fascinating theme, unusually well organized and written by Dr. Hunter, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, and a notable historical scholar. . . . This study course will not only prove interesting and informative to quorum classes, but will find a permanent place in every Priesthood bearer's library, for gospel information and reference. JOHN A. WIDTSOE, Improvement Era, (January, 1946), p. 48. * * * * *


What this shows is a unwillingness to accept what the church has taught and what they currently teach Aaron. I am very open to any official source and/or teaching on what you teach…please give me a cf, it is a teaching, then I will certainly acknowledge it was taught.
 

Markk

Active member
Well, I have no problem citing authority of the foundations from which I derive my belief. I just can't see how useful it would be, since you don't believe it anyway. The best response I could expect in return is "That's nice. Whatever."
Aaron, we believe differently, that is okay. Because we do believe differently, are you saying we can discuss our differences? I am being very fair and showing you what the church teaches, and what I was taught as a Mormon.

Is it wrong of me for trying to pin down LDS theology, as taught by the church? Do investigators deserves a honest assessment of LDS teachings, as taught by the church?

I am not sure what you expect from folks here in regards to your theories? Should I just say your theories are LDS doctrines, and I should just ignore what I was taught and what the GA teach?
 

Markk

Active member
Anything that focuses on the Doctrine of Christ, you consider "watered down".
I focus on the basics, which is easily supported by many, many sources.
When we get into the deep doctrines as we hie to Kolob, yeah, that's not backed, nor do I expect it to, since Adam God was generally rejected by the Church.
That’s not true at all, nor is that fair to what I have written. What is watered down today is the core teachings I have presented from recent decades back. Go to any GC talk and listen to how the GA talk to the folks, it is sad.

The most basic doctrine in the church is the “plan of salvation and progression”, and if one cannot understand this they have no hope of understanding Mormonism period. Most every teaching manual printed, at least that I have read teach the HF and HM begat spirit children…why do you run from this basic teaching.

Here it is from a current teaching manual, I am sure you study from if your are active. Instead of clearly teaching what the write in their manuals at conference, they just instead speak to you like primary children. How about expounding on the teaching in the manuals, like the past GA did…that again is what is watered down.

The first paragraph reads…

We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father​

  • What do scriptures and latter-day prophets teach us about our relationship to God?
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).


I tell you what Aaron…tell me what HF plan of salvations is, as taught by the Church…show me where I error?
 
Top