The Creation of our Spirit

[Dusty52]

It is of interest to me, is there a problem in asking?
Why do you feel the to ask of my intention? Why did Elder Widstoe ask the original question?
Are you some sort of gatekeeper to knowledge?
For me it is just another piece of the jigsaw

No, I’m just curious. I’m not a gatekeeper for anything. But I do know that a lot of people on this forum play games. And when they’re presented with what’s been revealed on a particular subject, they throw it back in your face.

Pearls and swine...that sort of thing.

I assure you I'm not on here to play games my intention is to attempt to understand
Thanks for your response

[LukeAir2008]

We have always existed as independent intelligences.

D&C 93:29

We were clothed with a spirit body by two Celestial parents in the same way that we were later clothed with a physical body by our earthly parents.

I think this is speculation at best.
That isn't a criticism. One of the problems, and advantages, of being a Mormon is that we get to fill in the blanks any way we choose.

I’m not speculating on anything.

There is a difference between making up your own doctrine, as many seem to do on this forum, and accepting the teachings of those who you consider to be inspired.

True, but what you advocate is not scriptural.
Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to accept any teaching that is not contained in the standard works. We are bound only by those things which the Lord has seen fit to reveal to us in that way.
Inspired or otherwise, teachings which go beyond the revealed work are likely to be faulty, incomplete, inadequate, or worse.

So your statement regarding the formation of spirit bodies is speculation.... just not your speculation.

True Latter Day Saints accept the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him who knew his teachings and were faithful to them. There has been very little publicised revelation since then but I accept anything that an authorised Prophet says is from God. ie revelation on Africans receiving the Priesthood.

And you obviously don’t realise you’re contradicting yourself.

You say that we are under no obligation to accept anything not contained in the Standard Works.

So that would include most of the Temple Ordinances, the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, all First Presidency Statements giving instructions to the Church, all General Conference addresses etc. I could go on.

You then mention that things that go beyond the ‘revealed work’ are unreliable. The revealed work or word are the inspired statements of Prophets authorised to speak for God. Nothing to do with whether they’ve been officially added to a canon by the vote of uninspired people.

Why do the leaders of the Church continue to authorise the publication of statements of inspired Church leaders in Priesthood, Sunday School and Institute manuals when as you say we’re not obliged to accept or believe any of it.

[Robin Hood]

I think this is speculation at best.
That isn't a criticism. One of the problems, and advantages, of being a Mormon is that we get to fill in the blanks any way we choose.

I’m not speculating on anything.

There is a difference between making up your own doctrine, as many seem to do on this forum, and accepting the teachings of those who you consider to be inspired.

True, but what you advocate is not scriptural.
Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to accept any teaching that is not contained in the standard works. We are bound only by those things which the Lord has seen fit to reveal to us in that way.
Inspired or otherwise, teachings which go beyond the revealed work are likely to be faulty, incomplete, inadequate, or worse.

So your statement regarding the formation of spirit bodies is speculation.... just not your speculation.

True Latter Day Saints accept the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him who knew his teachings and were faithful to them. There has been very little publicised revelation since then but I accept anything that an authorised Prophet says is from God. ie revelation on Africans receiving the Priesthood.

And you obviously don’t realise you’re contradicting yourself.

You say that we are under no obligation to accept anything not contained in the Standard Works.

So that would include most of the Temple Ordinances, the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, all First Presidency Statements giving instructions to the Church, all General Conference addresses etc. I could go on.

You then mention that things that go beyond the ‘revealed work’ are unreliable. The revealed work or word are the inspired statements of Prophets authorised to speak for God. Nothing to do with whether they’ve been officially added to a canon by the vote of uninspired people.

Why do the leaders of the Church continue to authorise the publication of statements of inspired Church leaders in Priesthood, Sunday School and Institute manuals when as you say we’re not obliged to accept or believe any of it.

The word of wisdom is not a commandment and many LDS, including myself, are clued up enough to understand that. That doesn't mean I don't observe it; it was a revelation and a greeting sent by God to us. That same God who specifically said it was not a commandment. In the absence of any revelation superceding that, I have no choice but to go with scripture.

But the WoW becomming a commandment is an example of your contradiction. A motion was put to a regional conference of the church and decided by the "vote of uninspired people".

The temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, sealings, washings and anointings, and endowments are all clearly referred to in the scriptures. I can't even begin to understand why you said they weren't.
No heavenly mother is mentioned in the scriptures, which is why I choose not to spend any time in such a doctrinal speculation. I am not required to believe it and neither are you. If you choose to, fine. But neither you nor anyone else can require me to believe it.

"All First Presidency Statements...... all general conference statements".
Seriously? Which ones? The ones that say one thing, or the other ones that say the opposite? You have clearly chosen a very poor example here to illusteate your point. You say you "could go on". It's probably best you don't. You know what they say..... when you're in a hole, stop digging!

[Lyster]

If a celestial woman had to birth billions of babies in the same way they do here, no woman would ever want to be righteous.

[LukeAir2008]

Robin Hood seems to be at variance with the official guidance of the LDS Church with regard to the inspired words of Church leaders.

This is from the Gospel Principles manual Chapter 10.

Words of Our Living Prophets

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

Note the word ‘inspired’ Robin. It doesn’t say the ‘uninspired’ words of Church leaders.

[LukeAir2008]

Maybe some people forget that the official Scriptures are just the inspired words of Prophets and Apostles added to an official volume by the common consent of the wider body of the Church.

So Robin, is God a Spirit? (John 4:24) Or does he have a body of flesh and bone? (D&C 130:22)

Did God create Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) or was Adam born into the world by water and blood and spirit? (Moses 6:59)

And I could go on and on and on...

[LukeAir2008]

Oh Robin, Bishop Robin, please tell me where I can find in the Standard Works where Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey received the Melchizedek Priesthood at the hands of Peter,James and John?

Surely such an important pivotal event must be in the Standard Works?

As you say, anything not in the Standard Works can be rejected?

[The Airbender]

I’m not speculating on anything.

There is a difference between making up your own doctrine, as many seem to do on this forum, and accepting the teachings of those who you consider to be inspired.

True, but what you advocate is not scriptural.
Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to accept any teaching that is not contained in the standard works. We are bound only by those things which the Lord has seen fit to reveal to us in that way.
Inspired or otherwise, teachings which go beyond the revealed work are likely to be faulty, incomplete, inadequate, or worse.

So your statement regarding the formation of spirit bodies is speculation.... just not your speculation.

True Latter Day Saints accept the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him who knew his teachings and were faithful to them. There has been very little publicised revelation since then but I accept anything that an authorised Prophet says is from God. ie revelation on Africans receiving the Priesthood.

And you obviously don’t realise you’re contradicting yourself.

You say that we are under no obligation to accept anything not contained in the Standard Works.

So that would include most of the Temple Ordinances, the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, all First Presidency Statements giving instructions to the Church, all General Conference addresses etc. I could go on.

You then mention that things that go beyond the ‘revealed work’ are unreliable. The revealed work or word are the inspired statements of Prophets authorised to speak for God. Nothing to do with whether they’ve been officially added to a canon by the vote of uninspired people.

Why do the leaders of the Church continue to authorise the publication of statements of inspired Church leaders in Priesthood, Sunday School and Institute manuals when as you say we’re not obliged to accept or believe any of it.

The word of wisdom is not a commandment and many LDS, including myself, are clued up enough to understand that. That doesn't mean I don't observe it; it was a revelation and a greeting sent by God to us. That same God who specifically said it was not a commandment. In the absence of any revelation superceding that, I have no choice but to go with scripture.

But the WoW becomming a commandment is an example of your contradiction. A motion was put to a regional conference of the church and decided by the "vote of uninspired people".

The temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, sealings, washings and anointings, and endowments are all clearly referred to in the scriptures. I can't even begin to understand why you said they weren't.
No heavenly mother is mentioned in the scriptures, which is why I choose not to spend any time in such a doctrinal speculation. I am not required to believe it and neither are you. If you choose to, fine. But neither you nor anyone else can require me to believe it.

"All First Presidency Statements...... all general conference statements".
Seriously? Which ones? The ones that say one thing, or the other ones that say the opposite? You have clearly chosen a very poor example here to illusteate your point. You say you "could go on". It's probably best you don't. You know what they say..... when you're in a hole, stop digging!

What do you mean by saying we aren't "required" to believe in certain doctrines? What do you mean by that? I mean, I understand that there are certain things we have to believe to be able to go to the temple, etc. But since when has "believing" been something that was done out of requirement? Isn't it a joy to be able to learn things directly from the spirit? To me, your gospel sounds like homework and I DESPISE homework.

[Robin Hood]

True, but what you advocate is not scriptural.
Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to accept any teaching that is not contained in the standard works. We are bound only by those things which the Lord has seen fit to reveal to us in that way.
Inspired or otherwise, teachings which go beyond the revealed work are likely to be faulty, incomplete, inadequate, or worse.

So your statement regarding the formation of spirit bodies is speculation.... just not your speculation.

True Latter Day Saints accept the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him who knew his teachings and were faithful to them. There has been very little publicised revelation since then but I accept anything that an authorised Prophet says is from God. ie revelation on Africans receiving the Priesthood.

And you obviously don’t realise you’re contradicting yourself.

You say that we are under no obligation to accept anything not contained in the Standard Works.

So that would include most of the Temple Ordinances, the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, doctrines regarding Heavenly Mother, all First Presidency Statements giving instructions to the Church, all General Conference addresses etc. I could go on.

You then mention that things that go beyond the ‘revealed work’ are unreliable. The revealed work or word are the inspired statements of Prophets authorised to speak for God. Nothing to do with whether they’ve been officially added to a canon by the vote of uninspired people.

Why do the leaders of the Church continue to authorise the publication of statements of inspired Church leaders in Priesthood, Sunday School and Institute manuals when as you say we’re not obliged to accept or believe any of it.

The word of wisdom is not a commandment and many LDS, including myself, are clued up enough to understand that. That doesn't mean I don't observe it; it was a revelation and a greeting sent by God to us. That same God who specifically said it was not a commandment. In the absence of any revelation superceding that, I have no choice but to go with scripture.

But the WoW becomming a commandment is an example of your contradiction. A motion was put to a regional conference of the church and decided by the "vote of uninspired people".

The temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead, sealings, washings and anointings, and endowments are all clearly referred to in the scriptures. I can't even begin to understand why you said they weren't.
No heavenly mother is mentioned in the scriptures, which is why I choose not to spend any time in such a doctrinal speculation. I am not required to believe it and neither are you. If you choose to, fine. But neither you nor anyone else can require me to believe it.

"All First Presidency Statements...... all general conference statements".
Seriously? Which ones? The ones that say one thing, or the other ones that say the opposite? You have clearly chosen a very poor example here to illusteate your point. You say you "could go on". It's probably best you don't. You know what they say..... when you're in a hole, stop digging!

What do you mean by saying we aren't "required" to believe in certain doctrines? What do you mean by that? I mean, I understand that there are certain things we have to believe to be able to go to the temple, etc. But since when has "believing" been something that was done out of requirement? Isn't it a joy to be able to learn things directly from the spirit? To me, your gospel sounds like homework and I DESPISE homework.

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed we can set it aside.... We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-204

[ParticleMan]

. . . . But since when has "believing" been something that was done out of requirement? Isn't it a joy to be able to learn things directly from the spirit? . . . .

Joseph Smith taught, "I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief" (TPJS, p. 374).