An Introduction and an Invitation

[zerinus]

I have heard of the LDS doctrine of “eternal progression” from many different sources. I’ve heard it described as the belief that humans actually become gods just like God the Father. I’ve read of comments attributed to Joseph Smith such as, “as man is God once was, as God is man may become.” Other sources say eternal progression is something like a complete joining with God the Father? Still others I’ve spoken with describe eternal progression as a sort of eternal “pyramid” with humans moving up from humanity to divinity, provided they are good temple-worthy Mormons. And I’ve heard non-LDS people comment about how “Mormons think that one day they will be the god of their very own planet?!” (Note: I tend to give little weight to the latter comments, and would like to hear directly from someone who is an active LDS Church member.) There seems to be a confusing mix of information on the doctrine, and I am truly curious about the issue… so… without meaning to offend:

What does the LDS Church teach about what happens after life on Earth? Do you believe you will become a god? If not, what do you think happens after life on Earth?

Peace,
-Robert

The confusion you are describing is the surest sign of people trying to speculate about something beyond that which God has revealed. There are certain things that God has revealed, and lots more things that He hasn’t; and it is very unwise to try to speculate about what God has chosen not to reveal to us as yet. When that happens, the safest course of action is to stick closely to what God has revealed on the subject, and ignore the speculations. As far as the particular doctrine that you are referring to, there are several passages in LDS scripture that mentions it; but it is most comprehensively taught in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. If you have a copy of that book, I recommend you to go and read it. If not, you can also read it online here. That is basically what God has revealed to us at the present time about this subject. Everything else you hear is likely to be speculation and not true LDS doctrine.

zerinus

 

[santaro75]

According to the Smithsonian Institute, the following items (which, according to The Book of Mormon, existed in the Americas between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.) have absolutely no evidence for existing in the America’s during the time in question:

• Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
• Horses - Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
• Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
• Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
• Coins - Alma 11:5-19
• Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
• Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
• Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8
• Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17

Or perhaps this?

Quote:
The genetic challenge centers on the claims of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, descended from Lehi, are a “remnant of the House of Israel” and the “principal ancestors of the American Indians”, as is stated on the book’s title page. Therefore, a literal reading of the Book of Mormon suggests that modern-day Native Americans are descended from the party of Israelites that migrated to the New World around 600 BC from the Jerusalem area. If this were the case, according to the challenge, then it would reasonably be expected that the DNA of Native Americans would show strong correlations with Semitic genetic markers, consistent with Hebrew descent…It is well accepted that Native American genetic markers are dominated by indicators of descendancy from peoples of SiberiaAsia, with a remainder consistent with genetic admixture after European contact in 1492. Some genetic researchers such as Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton emphasized that the substantial collection of Native American genetic markers now available are not consistent with any detectable presence of ancestors from the ancient Middle East, and argued that this poses substantial evidence to contradict the account in the Book of Mormon
didn’t see if you answered these yet. Also can you explain how the language was chosen in the book of Mormon. seems to be a style of english that wasn’t spoken at the time the plates were translated. Why would God translate the plates into a version of english not spoken at the time.

 

[Chris-WA]

The confusion you are describing is the surest sign of people trying to speculate about something beyond that which God has revealed. There are certain things that God has revealed, and lots more things that He hasn’t; and it is very unwise to try to speculate about what God has chosen not to reveal to us as yet. When that happens, the safest course of action is to stick closely to what God has revealed on the subject, and ignore the speculations. As far as the particular doctrine that you are referring to, there are several passages in LDS scripture that mentions it; but it is most comprehensively taught in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. If you have a copy of that book, I recommend you to go and read it. If not, you can also read it online here. That is basically what God has revealed to us at the present time about this subject. Everything else you hear is likely to be speculation and not true LDS doctrine.

zerinus

I can see the logic of not speculating on what has not been revealed. That makes perfect sense. You call it unwise–and it is. But where does this leave Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? Joseph is the founding prophet of your church, and it seems to me he did quite a bit of this, as did other LDS leaders. So from your side can you see why we may have reservations about the man Joseph Smith and others when it comes to reliability?

 

[Chris-WA]

For Catholics, “eternal” is existence in current form without beginning or end, time or space, etc. For LDS theology, “eternal” is having always existed in “some” form and always progressing. That is the key distinction and the cause of most of the discord. For the LDS, God is eternal and infinite because His knowledge and power are infinitely expanding at an infinitely increasing rate.

I don’t understand this and would appreciate some unpacking of this idea. How can God’s power and knowledge increase if he is already God? What more can he be than what he was yesterday or even at the dawn of creation?

 

[kellie]

Great follow up question.

Peter, James, and John were what the LDS refer to as the “First Presidency” of the Church. They were taken by Christ to the mount, saw Him transfigured, heard the voice of God bear record of His divinity, and received important priesthood keys from Elijah, Elias, and Moses.

As a 14 year old boy, Joseph Smith saw the various religions of the day and approached the Lord in prayer for guidance on which he should join. In a miraculous modern-day revelation, God the Father and Christ appeared in vision and told the boy that none of the organizations then present on the Earth were the organization He had established. Joseph was also told that, if he continued to be faithful, he would play a part in the restoration of that organization.

A few years later, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and a man named Oliver Cowdery, and conferred upon them the priesthood and the keys for reestablishing the Church and administering the Gospel.

So, in this respect, both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church claim a direct link in the priesthood keys to Peter, the first Pope or President of the Twelve.

Thanks, again.

Did Joseph Smith ever say why God said none of the existing organizations on earth were the one He had established?

Why believe Joseph Smith? Could he not have been a 14 year old boy who thought he could become famous by making up a story about a revelation from God, and make his own religion?

Why not believe people who were actually on earth the same time as Peter? Peter passed his stories on to others, so when Peter died in Rome, his stories were left with other people, so they could take up the role left by Peter, hence the Papal succession.

Joseph Smith was not on earth with Peter, so what makes you truly believe him?

 

[zerinus]

Did Joseph Smith ever say why God said none of the existing organizations on earth were the one He had established?

Why believe Joseph Smith? Could he not have been a 14 year old boy who thought he could become famous by making up a story about a revelation from God, and make his own religion?

Why not believe people who were actually on earth the same time as Peter? Peter passed his stories on to others, so when Peter died in Rome, his stories were left with other people, so they could take up the role left by Peter, hence the Papal succession.

Joseph Smith was not on earth with Peter, so what makes you truly believe him?

You could ask that question about any prophet that has ever lived. What makes you truly believe in Peter? What makes you truly believe in Jesus? Lots of people don’t, or haven’t. How do you know they weren’t right?

zerinus

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I don’t understand this and would appreciate some unpacking of this idea. How can God’s power and knowledge increase if he is already God? What more can he be than what he was yesterday or even at the dawn of creation?

Thank you, Chris-WA. I appreciate your generosity. It is hard to explain, let alone comprehend, and I appreciate you giving me the chance to unpack it a little.

Like I said earlier, this topic and discussion come from teachings that are not ratified by the Church and whose origin and accuracy are suspect. However, it is consistent with LDS theology generally as the LDS under stand principles of “eternity”, “eternal”, “infinite” and “without bounds.”

For the LDS, to say that God’s glory is not increasing or expanding is to say it has limit. We know that can’t be. To say that God’s power and glory were infinite yesterday, and still to say that it is even greater to day is like saying His glory today is infinite + infinite.

I say that God’s glory is infinitely expanding at an infinitely increasing rate to try to capture the idea that his glory is eternal and without limit.

Again, the most important thing to get out of this topic is that the LDS believe in the infinite power and glory of God and hold Him in the same reverence and awe as anyone. As I said earlier, the nature of God is a mystery and something we will never fully comprehend in this life. The only concern we have is to follow His will and try to become more like Him in every way.

I hope this helps clarify things. Thanks, again.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Can you explain how the language was chosen in the Book of Mormon. Seems to be a style of English that wasn’t spoken at the time the plates were translated. Why would God translate the plates into a version of English not spoken at the time?

Excellent question. Thank you.

Translation, revelation, and inspiration are oft misunderstood principles of the Gospel. Many assume that they occur like God writing the Ten Commandments in the stone tablets with His own finger. That is just not the case.

While God’s revelation to a prophet might be absolutely crystal clear, that prophet communicating that revelation to others is fraught with human frailty (think Moses and Aaron).

Scripture is the writing of men when moved upon by the Spirit of God, yet, with all their eternal perspective, they are still written in men’s language by men who have limited ability.

This is where the biggest trial of faith comes and how God allows for His guidance without compromising free will. It requires faith to look past the frailties of the deliverer to the heart of the message and to take that message to God ourselves in prayer and have it confirmed by Him, through His Spirit, directly to us.

The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is a perfect example of this, but there are countless Biblical examples as well. Joseph Smith had a 3rd grade education when he was given the plates and the assignment to translate. He told others that he “saw” what the authors were writing rather than the translation of the exact words they used.

The Book of Mormon is not a perfect writing, but that is the miracle of it. Despite all Joseph Smith’s inabilities to deliver the perfect translation, it is still more than he could have done on his own. Finally, it is a work that testifies of the divinity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. For those with the faith to look to the heart of the message, it is a source of inspiration and guidance that brings them closer to God and His Son.

Great question. Thank you.

 

[santaro75]

Excellent question. Thank you.

Translation, revelation, and inspiration are oft misunderstood principles of the Gospel. Many assume that they occur like God writing the Ten Commandments in the stone tablets with His own finger. That is just not the case.

While God’s revelation to a prophet might be absolutely crystal clear, that prophet communicating that revelation to others is fraught with human frailty (think Moses and Aaron).

Scripture is the writing of men when moved upon by the Spirit of God, yet, with all their eternal perspective, they are still written in men’s language by men who have limited ability.

This is where the biggest trial of faith comes and how God allows for His guidance without compromising free will. It requires faith to look past the frailties of the deliverer to the heart of the message and to take that message to God ourselves in prayer and have it confirmed by Him, through His Spirit, directly to us.

The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is a perfect example of this, but there are countless Biblical examples as well. Joseph Smith had a 3rd grade education when he was given the plates and the assignment to translate. He told others that he “saw” what the authors were writing rather than the translation of the exact words they used.

The Book of Mormon is not a perfect writing, but that is the miracle of it. Despite all Joseph Smith’s inabilities to deliver the perfect translation, it is still more than he could have done on his own. Finally, it is a work that testifies of the divinity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. For those with the faith to look to the heart of the message, it is a source of inspiration and guidance that brings them closer to God and His Son.

Great question. Thank you.

great answer. i agree with much of what you said.

What i was asking however was why Joseph didn’t translate them into the common language that he spoke. He translated it into a version of english that sounded like the king james bible.

To a non believing onlooker it would seem that he did that to lend authenticity to it.

 

[santaro75]

And…if you don’t mind. what do you say about these? If you don’t have an answer thats ok. But these are very interesting arguments to me.

According to the Smithsonian Institute, the following items (which, according to The Book of Mormon, existed in the Americas between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.) have absolutely no evidence for existing in the America’s during the time in question:

• Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
• Horses - Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
• Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
• Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
• Coins - Alma 11:5-19
• Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
• Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
• Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8
• Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17

Or perhaps this?

Quote:
The genetic challenge centers on the claims of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, descended from Lehi, are a “remnant of the House of Israel” and the “principal ancestors of the American Indians”, as is stated on the book’s title page. Therefore, a literal reading of the Book of Mormon suggests that modern-day Native Americans are descended from the party of Israelites that migrated to the New World around 600 BC from the Jerusalem area. If this were the case, according to the challenge, then it would reasonably be expected that the DNA of Native Americans would show strong correlations with Semitic genetic markers, consistent with Hebrew descent…It is well accepted that Native American genetic markers are dominated by indicators of descendancy from peoples of SiberiaAsia, with a remainder consistent with genetic admixture after European contact in 1492. Some genetic researchers such as Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton emphasized that the substantial collection of Native American genetic markers now available are not consistent with any detectable presence of ancestors from the ancient Middle East, and argued that this poses substantial evidence to contradict the account in the Book of Mormon

 

[NotreDameMormon]

great answer. i agree with much of what you said.

What i was asking however was why Joseph didn’t translate them into the common language that he spoke. He translated it into a version of english that sounded like the king james bible.

To a non believing onlooker it would seem that he did that to lend authenticity to it.

And perhaps that is the case. I do not know. There could be any one of a thousand explanations.

Perhaps it was the fact that the Book of Mormon authors had parts of the Old Testament with them and that is the only way they preserved their language and writing.

Joseph Smith, like many of his day, learned to read and write out of the Bible and perhaps that played a part.

I really do not know and have not studied it enough to give an adequate response. I appreciate the importance of the question, though.

As for the rest, I believe I have already answered those questions. Maybe not specifically, but generally, and that is all I can really do here with this discussion board. Like the Bible, there is just enough physical evidence substantiating claims of the Book of Mormon to inspire and confirm faith and just enough questionable facts to require it. This is how God operates with respect to our obedience and worship. It is more important to God that we exercise faith and free will than be convinced by signs and wonders. This is the only way we will come to fully love and trust Him over our own wisdom and limited vision.

Thanks, again.

 

[zerinus]

great answer. i agree with much of what you said.

What i was asking however was why Joseph didn’t translate them into the common language that he spoke. He translated it into a version of english that sounded like the king james bible.

To a non believing onlooker it would seem that he did that to lend authenticity to it.

I believe that the choice of the language for the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired. It is true that the KJV was not the spoken language of the people in America at that time—although to some extent it was! The KJV was the most revered book among the Americans at that time, and it had had considerable influence in shaping their vocabulary and idiomatic use of the language—but it was the language of religion and scripture at that time. It had been around for several hundred years, and had had enormous influence in shaping the language of English speaking peoples during that period, and it was basically all that they knew. There weren’t any of the proliferations of “modern” Bible translations that have sprung up during the past 160 years. At that time the KJV was the one and only. I am sure other translations must have existed; but none came anywhere near the KJV for its cultural and religious status and importance, as well as its literary influence. Hence the Book of Mormon was effectively translated into the revered scriptural language of the time.

I am sure that if more modern scripture were revealed by the Lord to the Church today, it would still be translated in the style of the KJV/BoM, for the same reasons. LDS still pray in the same language. They use “thee” and “thou” when addressing the Deity, and make use of the same ideomatic form of the language familiarsed by the KJV, because they consider that to be a revered language and the correct one to use.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Like the Bible, there is just enough physical evidence substantiating claims of the Book of Mormon to inspire and confirm faith and just enough questionable facts to require it.

So are you saying that there is as much physical evidence supporting the BOM as there is for the Bible?

The physical evidence for the Bible is overwhelming, whereas there is, to date, absolutely no evidence of any kind that supports the historicity of the BOM, while there is overwhelming evidence against it.

If you know of any evidence that supports the BOM, please share it with is.

Thanks in advance,
Paul

 

[estesbob]

How about this?

Now Im really confused!

 

[NotreDameMormon]

So are you saying that there is as much physical evidence supporting the BOM as there is for the Bible?

The physical evidence for the Bible is overwhelming, whereas there is, to date, absolutely no evidence of any kind that supports the historicity of the BOM, while there is overwhelming evidence against it.

If you know of any evidence that supports the BOM, please share it with is.

Thanks in advance,
Paul

Here is a link for some examples of the evidence you seek, Paul:

jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#intro

Just don’t get too excited about it, is all I am saying. I think there are few atheists who share your faith in the “overwhelming” evidence of the Bible. Again, like the Bible, there is just enough physical evidence substantiating claims of the Book of Mormon to inspire and confirm faith and just enough questionable facts to require it.

Thanks for your follow up.

 

[boppysbud]

I don’t understand this and would appreciate some unpacking of this idea. How can God’s power and knowledge increase if he is already God? What more can he be than what he was yesterday or even at the dawn of creation?

That one is easy, the fact is that Mormons (not any kind of “saints”) do not belive that “god” what they like to call “heavenly Father” has is fact always been “god”.

They beleive that “god” started out an ordinary human, and worked it’s way up to being a “god” but originally thier “god” was just exactly like you and I, a mortal man complete with a body of “flesh and bone” but interestingly enough not flesh and blood.

The Mormons use a lot of the same terms that Christians use, but define those terms deceptively differently.

Just like when they say “Godhead” they mean three completely seperate “gods”, who are of course not really “gods” at all.

Christians are montheistic, while Mormons are polytheistic, They get around that by saying that even though they beleive in the existence of more than one “god” they only worship one “god” the so called “heavenly father”.

 

[Chris-WA]

For the LDS, to say that God’s glory is not increasing or expanding is to say it has limit.

I would have to disagree with this assumption. Infinite glory “without increase” does not imply a limit. After all, “infinite” means “no limit.” You can’t say that God has infinite power and glory, and then say that his infinite power and glory are increasing. You cannot increase what’s already infinite. That just doesn’t make any sense. Furthermore, saying God’s power and glory are “increasing,” creates the problem of implying it was less yesterday and the day before, which leads to the logical conclusion that at some point God had a beginning. If that’s the case, then we are talking about an entirely different god here. Now we’re talking about a god who is a member of some species of eternal beings. Early LDS leaders made the same conclusions as I’m stating here. The LDS church doesn’t seem to take a position one way or the other today, but this is a part of its history.

 

[Chris-WA]

Like the Bible, there is just enough physical evidence substantiating claims of the Book of Mormon to inspire and confirm faith and just enough questionable facts to require it

I have to take issue with this statement. The BoM isn’t like the bible at all in this respect. For the bible, we have far more evidence of many places, people, and events. With the BoM, not one person, place, or event about the peoples in the America’s has ever been corroborated or discovered. We have no idea where any of the BoM cities are. We have absolutely no historical records from any member of either the Nephite or Lamanite civilizations. I don’t think it’s accurate to compare the bible and BoM in the way you did. Granted both require faith, but they are certainly not anywhere in the same neighborhood when it comes to historical or archeological evidence.

 

[boppysbud]

Sorry Chris-Wa, I did not see that you already are pretty well informed about the Mormons, I needen’t lecture you on a subject you already seem pretty well informed on.

Sorry Again. the Bopster.

 

[Chris-WA]

Sorry Chris-Wa, I did not see that you already are pretty well informed about the Mormons, I needen’t lecture you on a subject you already seem pretty well informed on.

Sorry Again. the Bopster.

Odessa, huh? I lived in Abilene for five years. I miss the people, the barbeque, the absence of traffic, the low home prices, but not those hot summers!