LDS beliefs about the human family

Great Debates
1

In a tangent from a somewhat unrelated Pit thread, Polycarp posted the following:

I’m going to move this excellent question into GD, in order to keep in separate. This is going to get into some of the more non-traditional beliefs of the Mormons; some of these beliefs drive others absolutely crazy. So I’m going to request that we keep this civil and above-board.

We consider there to be only one sapient species, one family. This species goes through a long period of growth and learning. Angels are either people who have already died, or people who have not yet been born. They may be spirit beings, or have bodies. (See the Bible Dictionary for a detailed explanation, with references.) People living on the earth now are a composite of spirit and body, the whole of which is a soul. A body is necessary to us; we are incomplete without one, though right now our bodies are imperfect and fallen.

Assigned reading: Abraham 3, especially 22-28. Once upon a time, all of us lived together with our Heavenly Father. We were spirits, and needed a place to go where we could obtain bodies and learn good and evil for ourselves. God proposed a plan for us, which entailed a necessary sacrifice for sin. Lucifer came up with another one, which involved all people being forced never to sin and thus all coming back to heaven. He wanted all the glory for this (IOW, he wanted to take the Father’s place). Jesus supported the Father’s plan and volunteered for the job. A war ensued between the adherents to each side (what that ‘war’ entailed and what was done, we don’t know). Those who chose Lucifer’s plan went with him, and became fallen angels. They will never receive a body or be able to progress, having rejected the Father’s creation. The rest of us get born on earth, to gain experience and learn things for ourselves. (Thus, according to us, you did in fact ask to be born.)

We agree there (except that of course, since we aren’t Catholic, we don’t believe Mary to have been sinless). Our view of the Godhead is of course a bit different than the traditional one, but that doesn’t really come in here, since we do believe Christ to be part of the Godhead.

As above, we do not have that distinction. Moroni is a resurrected person. He is also an angel. (But we only use the term ‘archangel’ to refer to Michael.) Since Moroni was a prophet while on earth, and is one of the “noble and great ones” (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:55), he, along with others, is a heavenly messenger. Since he originally put the Golden Plates away, he was the one to show them to Joseph Smith; he has a kind of stewardship over them.

Well, the first part is correct. Lucifer is not, however, ‘altogether distinct’ in the way you mean. He is a member of the same species as we are, but he is fallen and in rebellion, and will never gain the kingdon of Heaven, because he doesn’t want it. He has rejected the entire plan and has rejected God completely.

And now we come to the necessary Big Picture. As you can see, our beliefs diverge in many respects from traditional ones, most obviously that we believe that we existed before we were born. (The assigned reading here is Doctrine & Covenants 93:29-36, and Abraham 3 again, 19-22.) Not only that, but we believe that some part of us is eternal and uncreated. That part, which we call intelligence, is the very core of our being and is where our free will comes from. Heavenly Father took the intelligences and organized spirit bodies for them. (I always imagine little glowing balls of light floating around, but there’s no actual information on what intelligences look like or where they come from.) Thus we began our journey to become as much like Him as we can, for Heavenly Father is intelligent too–but of course infinitely more so than we are. So, once we became spirits, we found that we needed bodies to continue to learn and grow and become like our Father (who has a glorified and perfected body). We get born on earth to gain physical bodies. Once we die, we lose them again, but only for a time. Someday we will all be resurrected and have our bodies again, only perfected and undying this time. How far we go towards perfection, however, is entirely up to each person. Heavenly Father’s goal is to help us get as far as we want to–hopefully to grow up completely and become like Him.

2

genie: Good job!

3

genie Excellent post.

I imagine it the same as you do.

4

Do y’all remember the following movies?
[list=1][li]It’s a Miracle[/li][li]Saturday’s Warriors[/li][li]I forget the name, but it’s the sequel to no. 2[/list=1][/li]What’d you think about the portrayal of the pre-existence there? Of course, I realize that it was only a portrayal, and an artistic one at that; however, I’m wondering what parts of it you liked & what parts you think are close to being doctrinally correct (not necessarily the same thing, of course).

5

genie: I thought intelligence was always in existence?

6

I’ve seen them when they were stage products, so if memory serves it’s been 15-20 years. To be honest I remember enjoying them, the basic story and snippets of songs, but nothing very specific.

Star Child is the sequel you are thinking of.

In Abraham 3:22 he calls our preexistence spirits “the intelligences that were organized before the world was”

Monty I think that is what genie is saying here:

7

Yes, Monty, that’s what I said. Always in existence, yep.

Anyway, I’ve only ever seen Saturday’s Warrior, and that only once. It’s a very romanticized portrayal, and it’s also doctrinally incorrect. And cheesy, too. I like cheese, but only to a point!

I don’t think the show portrays the pre-mortal life at all well. And the biggest beef I have with it is the idea that there is someone out there who is The One, a meant-to-be companion who you’re supposed to marry. President Kimball spoke out rather vehemently about that in 1976. There are a couple other problems as well. We don’t know much about the pre-mortal life, and I don’t think speculation is a good idea.

8

Genie: Thanks for the explanation. I may have more questions on this, but that clarified stuff I’d been puzzled about.

9

Come to think of it, Poly, I have some questions about your beliefs as well. What exactly is the difference between humans and angels? Could an angel get a body? Do they have specific jobs, besides eternal praise? Can a human become an angel, or is that popular movie culture? Are bodies important? If not, why do we look forward to a resurrection? After Judgement Day, do we keep them forever, or go back to a spiritual existence?

IOW, what is the general timeline for traditionalists? Mormons think of life in terms of a progression: intelligence–>spirit–>mortal–>spirit again–>resurrected. How does it work for you guys? Where do spirits come from?

OK, that was a lot of questions. Take your time. :slight_smile:

10

genie: I like corny movies, so that’s the saving factor for SW for me. I really disagreed with the idea of “the one destined to meet & marry.” Actually, that was one of the talks from President Kimball that helped me accept the Gospel.

11

On the zoological plane, what is the difference between an oak and an elm tree? On the spiritual plane, they’re two distinct “species” created alike in having intelligence and a moral sense, but made differently for distinct roles in His creation.

That’s something we will both have to ask the Lord at the appropriate time. Insofar as I know, the answer would be “No, so far as we know – but God has not revealed an answer to that one.”

Guardians of individual people, parish churches , nations, etc. Probably other stuff too – there’s a class called “virtues” whose job seems to be to carry God’s strengthening of fortitude, temperance, etc., to those in need of it. (That final bit is my impression from Pseudo-Dionysius, not something I’d state as church teaching.)

The latter.

Yes. Not applicable – though I might mention that Paul was not preaching the General Resurrection as opposed to total-annihilation death; the common belief of Jews and pagans was that what survived death was a wraith impotent to do anything, only conscious of its own regrets. Cf. the Psalm “Thou wilt not allow thy beloved to go down to the Pit.”

The Resurrection of the Body was a teaching that in God’s good time he will endow all men and women with a body that is not only capable of what ours is but of much more – and the Resurrection of Christ is the firstfruits, the down payment as it were, the goodwill earnest payment that proves that God will indeed do so – and what He is capable of in his Risen, Spiritual Body, so will we also be. (Cf. I Corinthians 15) Personally I suspect that there is more than a little metaphor here, and the truth of the matter is something other than Paul, working in earthly body vs. wraithlike spirit terms, was able to express.

Under traditional doctrine, your spirit is created by God when you become a human being (leave that open as to conception, quickening, etc.). After death you “go to be with God,” apparently as a spirit, pending the General Resurrection.

(The Episcopal Church does not get into matters eschatological to any great extent, so you need to hear me being a bit reticent to not try to teach what my church does not. Some of the evangelicals could give you a detailed account of what happens to you from the time you die until after the Millenial Reign of Christ, complete with prooftexts.)
Hope this was some help.

12

Thanks, Poly. I do know a reasonable amount about other doctrines, but I was pretty fuzzy there. Your comment about the virtues leads me to wonder about the role of the Holy Spirit in your beliefs. I may be back.

13

When I was talking with genie about this over the weekend, I pointed out that the doctrine of intelligences resolves an issue that is very important to me: namely the Problem of Evil.

The problem arises because (traditionally) God is good, created everything, yet there is evil in the world. Hence, some argue that God must have created evil–or at least the spark that became evil. The nature of intelligence changes the equation somewhat, specifically D&C 93:29-31:

The eternal existence of intelligence means that God did not create them ex nihilo, and hence did not define all that we are–hence our choices are in fact undeniably ours and God cannot be blamed for the evil choices of men.

Why God allows evil/suffering to occur is another issue entirely, and worthy of discussion in and of itself.

14

The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person of the Godhead, but one which it is very difficult to get an accurate “fix” on – in a reasonable parallel, kind of like studying air by observation! His “role” is to be the indwelling presence of God in our lives, guiding and strengthening us.

So why angels? Angels are the messengers of God, but what is His direct doing and what His doing through them is a bit muzzy in the Bible, and IMHO intentionally so. They act at His direction --they are created spirits carrying out the will of their Creator. So in essence He does it.

In the announcement of Isaac’s birth just before the destruction of Sodom, we have God Himself coming to visit Abraham and Sarah. And how He manifests is as three men, whom Abraham recognizes as God. Then two of those men go down to Sodom and visit Lot – and they are described, indifferently, as young men and as angels. And many commentators claim that who visited Abraham was angels – that God did the visit through the agency of three of His angels.

Confusing? Yep. Probably a mix of traditions contribute to the muzziness. But IMHO it was intentional – the “direct” acts of God, and His acts through men and angels, should not be distinguished.

To draw yet another parallel: Suppose Monty has occasion to type out the last sentence in the Book of Mormon in response to a given comment about LDS Scriptures.

Who wrote that sentence? There are four accurate answers, from an LDS standpoint:
[ul][li]Monty. It was his fingers striking the keyboard and clicking on “submit” that caused the sentence to appear on this board.[/li][li]Joseph Smith, Jr. Unquestionably, the precise English words that Monty typed were first put on paper by your First Prophet. He wrote them.[/li][li]Moroni. He was author of that particular book of the Book of Mormon, albeit in whatever Nephites of ca. 600 AD read and wrote in.[/li][li]God. As Scripture, it was inspired by God, who caused Moroni to write as he did and Joseph Smith to provide the English rendering of it.[/ul][/li]Those of us who are not Mormons would still have to distinguish between the first two choices.

The parallel is obvious, I think: just as there are four possible “authors” for that piece of writing, what God does and how He accomplishes it may be seen in several different ways, all of which are valid within their own frame of reference.

15

Poly: You’re doing very well with the Comparative Religions discussion on this thread (and others). Keep it up!