Do Mormons really believe?

[Nanotwerp]

But then there’s that giant logical fallacy that every ‘God’ came from another God. The Godhead is a somewhat simplified ‘Trinity’ that is barely even close to the true Trinity; more like Hinduism.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

It’s annoying to see Catholics deny their own faith just to ridicule another’s.
“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

I’m not a Catholic and don’t fully understand the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Beatific Vision (or the Orthodox equivalent of Theosis), but I do know that there’s a marked difference between how the LDS and Catholics understand the nature of humans and the nature of divinity.

In LDS theology God and man are constituted of the exact same thing. God’s nature is substantively identical to that of humans. The difference between God and man is one of quality and development but not in kind. In Catholicism divine nature and human nature are distinct natures. Their difference is not one of quality and development but instead one in kind. This difference is important because as LDS we believe that the end result of exaltation is a very literal “becoming a god” since even right now there exists no substantive difference between God and man.

I think this analogy may work. As human beings my son and I have the exact same potential, though I’m theoretically more progressed than he is. As mammals, my dog and I share some qualities in our natures but we have two different natures. I can civilize him and bring his doggy nature to an elevated state compared to his wild default, but he will never progress to being a human being. In both cases we can talk of the elevation of my son (or my dog), but there’s a stark difference in the end result, and more importantly who is doing the elevating. In the case of my son, he has me as a model to emulate but if he ever succeeds in doing what I have already done (or even surpasses me in ability) it will ultimately be due to his exercising of his own free will. It will be his work that elevated him. In the case of my dog, any perfecting in his nature will be due to my work as a being with an already more perfect nature than his doggy nature.

So while Catholics and Mormons may both speak of “God becoming Man so that Man may become God”, the theological assumptions required and the resulting consequences are very different in the two traditions.

 

[TheIrishman]

No, it is not.

The problem is in what that MEANS. To the antis, it automatically means that “oh, there’s a God to rule every planet and every Mormon man can have his own planet with lots of eternally pregnant wives to pop out spirits to populate those planets”

…and we do not believe that, or anything close to that. Never have.

In fact, in that constantly criticized work, the “Pearl of Great Price,” which no matter what you think of it does set out some pretty solid, standard doctrine for us, we are told that God created ‘worlds without number,’ i.e., the universe, and that He is in charge of all of it.

Doesn’t leave any room for planetary godlets, does it?

So do we believe that we are, quite literally, the children of God…Who is our Father in Heaven, and that yes, we can grow up and be just like Him?

Absolutely.

That’s even biblical.

We may not know, at this point, what that means to us in the long run, but we do know what it does NOT mean, that is, we will be gods over our own individual planets.

…and before you start criticizing us for not having all the answers, please tell me: what is heaven going to be like, exactly, in your own beliefs? What will you be doing for all eternity?

WHY did God create you, anyway?

Do you know everything, have the answers to all your questions, or any question that anybody might want to ask you?

Do you need to?

I was taught that throughout my LDS life…minus the “eternally pregnant wives”. We even joked about it on my mission saying, “when i have my own planet, i’ll make one entirely full of pokemon”…etc.

Eternal progression, becoming “like” God. Every mormon knows and has at some point been taught that we will progress to godhood. Why are you denying eternal progression?

 

[dianaiad]

I was taught that throughout my LDS life…minus the “eternally pregnant wives”. We even joked about it on my mission saying, “when i have my own planet, i’ll make one entirely full of pokemon”…etc.

Eternal progression, becoming “like” God. Every mormon knows and has at some point been taught that we will progress to godhood. Why are you denying eternal progression?

I am not.

I am simply denying what the critics think that MEANS.

…and of course there are the jokes. We also joke about the Millenium and other things.

 

[kimg901]

Yes, I see where you are going with this.

You are going no where near LDS doctrine, is where you are going with this.

I feel absolutely no need to defend positions I neither believe in nor hold. However, feel free to find out what our beliefs on this really are, and then I’ll engage in a conversation with you.

Why, you could even ask me, rather than tell me what I ‘really’ believe. What an intriguing, unusual idea!

I have. I’ve read it from your books. I’ve also been told this by Mormons leaving the church for the Catholic Church (I help teach RCIA) so I know what is there in your doctrine. And that’s the problem with Mormonism, it’s ever changing. Once a prophet dies, his teachings are no longer valid. Or are they? I hope you don’t think im being rude to you. I can come off that way.

 

[LivingWaters7]

It’s annoying to see Catholics deny their own faith just to ridicule another’s.
“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

The sin is not in believing we might become God, it is in wanting to be like gods without really being like God.

CCC 398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

Let us be clear here. The criticism is not of belief in deification or theosis. Catholicism and Orthodoxy embrace the Biblical and patristic dogma that we become by grace what God is by nature, i.e. partaking of the divine nature. I am not sure why you bring up the above, since no one is criticizing that (and I’m not sure why you quote my post, since I made no criticism of such a teaching).

What is actually being discussed, and what I was referring to, is the belief that God the Father was once a man, and progressed to/achieved Godhood, and we follow the same path that He followed in achieving Godhood.

Please read carefully next time.

 

[LivingWaters7]

No, it is not.

The problem is in what that MEANS. To the antis, it automatically means that “oh, there’s a God to rule every planet and every Mormon man can have his own planet with lots of eternally pregnant wives to pop out spirits to populate those planets”

…and we do not believe that, or anything close to that. Never have.

In fact, in that constantly criticized work, the “Pearl of Great Price,” which no matter what you think of it does set out some pretty solid, standard doctrine for us, we are told that God created ‘worlds without number,’ i.e., the universe, and that He is in charge of all of it.

Doesn’t leave any room for planetary godlets, does it?
…

I don’t think that anyone was claiming to have all the answers to everything, and Catholicism certainly does not make such a claim (amusingly, I see many LDS posters on LDS-related forums mock and laugh at Catholic “mysteries”, i.e. the Trinity doctrine (or at least what they think the Trinity doctrine is)).

Again, the specific idea that we are discussing, the idea that I specifically stated is not an “anti” caricature, but has been taught in LDS church magazines manuals, etc, is that the Father was once a man that progressed to/achieved Godhood.

I think that while there certainly are caricatures of various LDS beliefs around (just like there are caricatures of Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Evangelical, etc beliefs), everything you mentioned can find at least some origin in actual statements from LDS sources, whether statements by leaders, manuals, magazines, etc. For example, the caricature of eternally pregnant wives popping out spirit babies didn’t just come out of thin air. It comes from the LDS teaching that those that are exalted will have “eternal increase”, i.e., they will be able to have spirit children.
**
““Eternal lives” is a term that refers to the right and power to beget children after the resurrection, granted to those who are exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. This is an aspect of eternal progression. “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).”**
eom.byu.edu/index.php/Eternal_Lives,_Eternal_Increase

**"
Elder Melvin J. Ballard

“What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them through their preparation, there will come spirit children. I don’t think that is very difficult to comprehend. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them” (Melvin J. Ballard—Crusader for Righteousness, 211).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie

“Mortal persons who overcome all things and gain an ultimate exaltation will live eternally in the family unit and have spirit children, thus becoming Eternal Fathers and Eternal Mothers. (D&C 132:19–32.) Indeed, the formal pronouncement of the Church, issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, states: ‘So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring.’ (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 129.)” (Mormon Doctrine, 517).**
lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/marriage-for-eternity?lang=eng

The caricature of having our own planets in the afterlife wasn’t just made up. It originated from the teaching that we will have, and/or create, worlds in the afterlife. For example:
**
“To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.”**
lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng

Then of course there are the various statements related to the progression of the Father to Godhood, and how not only we follow His example in achieving Godhood like He did, but He did what others did before Himself. So, while I do think various things are caricatured, we do find the teachings related to having spirit children in the afterlife, having/creating worlds, the God being a man that achieved Godhood, etc, in LDS sources.
"

 

[PaulDupre1]

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him.** To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this**."

• LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 2 pg 48)

 

[PaulDupre1]

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

1. They will become gods.

1. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

1. They will receive a fulness of joy.

1. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them”

(LDS prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36, quoted in LDS Sunday School Manual Gospel Principles, Chapter 47).

Note point 3: Those who are exalted (have become gods re: point 2) will produce spirit children who have the same relationship we have with Heavenly Father. The LDS worship Heavenly Father. So this passage is saying that LDS who become gods will be worshipped by their spirit children.

If Diana disagrees with this, she is not disagreeing with me. She is disagreeing with her prophets, seers and revelators.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[JaminB123]

Diana, why do you feel the need to bring Catholicism into every thread you post on in the Non-Catholic Religions forum? The thread is about Mormons and their beliefs, not Catholics.

Is all you can do is point at Catholics and say “Look! Catholics do the same thing! Catholics are no better than Mormons! So there!”

I’m a little late coming to this thread, but this passage really struck a chord with me. Every time I raise an objection to Mormonism, this is the standard response: somebody else was doing it too!

When I raise an objection to JS marrying young girls, they say, “It was common for a middle-aged man to marry younger teenagers back then.”

When I raise an objection to Brigham Young’s racism, they say, “Lot of people were racist back then.”

When I raise an objection to JS and BY’s immoral personal conduct, they say, “But there were plenty of immoral popes.”

When I raise an objection to polygamy and polyandry, they say, “Well, God commanded Abraham to practice polygamy too.” (This is false. God never “commanded” polygamy in the Old Testament. Furthermore, polyandry was certainly never condoned, and marrying mother/daughter and sister sets was explicitly condemned in the OT as I understand it.)

Whenever the immoral shortcomings of Mormonism are confronted, they response is always the same… All the other kids were doing it too.

But there is a difference here that matters. When our popes, bishops, or priests sin, we Catholics acknowledge is as sin. We aren’t afraid to call the behavior sinful, wrong, or even evil. When Joseph Smith sins, they refuse to call it sinful. They call it holy, good, and commanded by God. No TBM will ever call Joseph Smith’s polygamy, polyandry, adultery (marrying women already married to other men), and borderline incest (marrying mother/daughter sets or sister sets) sinful or evil. They call it good and say it was commanded by God. When a pope sins, it is sinful? When Joseph Smith sins, it is holy and commanded by God? I am so thankful for Catholic honesty about sin… and so sorrowful over Mormon’s refusal to call sin what it is–sin. Pope John Paul II apologized for our church’s mistakes, repented, and asked for forgiveness. Mormonism has yet to acknowledge and repent for their sins… but this is understandable, for if Mormonism acknowledges the sins of Joseph Smith (polygamy, polyandry, lying about the translation of scriptures, etc.), the entire foundation of the church is revealed for what it is–a lie.

 

[zaffiroborant]

When I raise an objection to JS marrying young girls, they say, “It was common for a middle-aged man to marry younger teenagers back then.”

But it wasn’t common the average age of menarche back then was 16-17 . How common would it be for a girl to get married before her first period?

 

[Nanotwerp]

It disturbs me how far Mormons go to protect their Presidents’ ‘holy’ ways.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m a little late coming to this thread, but this passage really struck a chord with me. Every time I raise an objection to Mormonism, this is the standard response: somebody else was doing it too!

When I raise an objection to JS marrying young girls, they say, “It was common for a middle-aged man to marry younger teenagers back then.”

When I raise an objection to Brigham Young’s racism, they say, “Lot of people were racist back then.”

When I raise an objection to JS and BY’s immoral personal conduct, they say, “But there were plenty of immoral popes.”

When I raise an objection to polygamy and polyandry, they say, “Well, God commanded Abraham to practice polygamy too.” (This is false. God never “commanded” polygamy in the Old Testament. Furthermore, polyandry was certainly never condoned, and marrying mother/daughter and sister sets was explicitly condemned in the OT as I understand it.)

Whenever the immoral shortcomings of Mormonism are confronted, they response is always the same… All the other kids were doing it too.

The conclusion I come too when Mormon’s defend their Church as you describe is:

There is nothing special or holy there, Mormons and their leaders are just acting and teaching like the worst of society did at the time.

 

[Miriam1947]

On the other hand…it is sometimes difficult to divorce behavior from teachings, when behavior lasts for a long time without correction from those in charge of the teachings. **The racism found in both our belief systems is a case in point. **

There is not now nor has there ever been any racism in Catholic beliefs. It has though been part of the actual doctrine (and I know how you hate that word, dianaiad) of the Mormon church and the only reason it was ever changed was because BYU sports were facing rejection by other college sports teams for their outright and outrageous racism. No one wanted to play with them anymore,

I have also read that the federal government was looking into discrimination against federal law because they receive funding from the government. I don’t know how true that part is.

 

[Nanotwerp]

She subscribed to another thread, since she, you know, ran out of apologetics for her beliefs.