T
TheExorcist
Guest
It’s Deseret Book Croso. Duane Crowther (and Brent L Top for that matter) are not and have not been GAs so those books are not official teaching nor authoritative.
LDS: What do you know about your Heavenly Mother? Would you like to know more?
- Status
C
Croso717
Guest
like i said its near-death experiences and speculation but if you read it and prayed about it you will get good feelings the Spirit gives you to testify that those things are true.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Croso, you are doing exactly what you have been taught and what Mormon missionaries tell potential converts.
You can feel the burning in your bosom, the good feelings that the Spirit is testifying to the truth of what you have read.
Makes it a bit difficult though for other Mormons who are not quite as open and frank as you are.
It’s good that you are, at your young age, asking some really serious questions. Now all you have to do is open up your library to other authors and philosophies.
C
Croso717
Guest
thank you for being considerate and the compliments but im happy in my religion i have no doubts that its true.
the only reason i joined this Catholic Forum thing was because i was asking Google how to explain the Heavenly Mother Concept to a non LDS member and i stumbled upon this. as i read i learned that people were discussing what LDS Church believe in. as i read on i believe i felt inspired by the Spirit to explain correctly what we believe in.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
With respect, Croso, there actually is a book that states where it all began. It is even (supposedly) accepted as doctrinally sound by the LDS church. It’s called the Book of Genesis. And it starts with the sentence, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…”
T
TheExorcist
Guest
C
Croso717
Guest
well if you read earlier before my post we were talking about where the chain gods began
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
I know what we were talking about. And my point is that ideas like a “chain of gods” or a time before God himself existed are so alien to the Judeo/Christian theological tradition that they cause an irreconcilable conflict with the first sentence of Holy Scripture.
Just think about that for a moment. Mormon theology cannot survive the first sentence of the Bible. You can’t get, say, halfway through the Bible before reading something that plainly conflicts with Mormon theology. Or two-thirds of the way through. Nope, the first theological conflict arrives at… the very first sentence.
Now I would just ask you to consider something with an open mind. Just please, honestly consider the following question, just for a moment:
Doesn’t that seem weird?
Doesn’t that seem weird that in order to reconcile the first sentence of the Bible with Mormon doctrine, you have to believe that the word “beginning” doesn’t mean “beginning” (because if someone else created Heavenly Father, then this scene is Genesis is objectively not the beginning), that the word “God” doesn’t mean “God” (because someone else created the matter that makes up the heavens and earth, God just was the one who organized it), and that the word “created” doesn’t mean “created” (he only organized pre-existing matter).
Isn’t that just a little… weird?
Now obviously, anyone is free to either accept or reject the Book of Genesis specifically and the Bible in general. But if you reject it - as LDS doctrine clearly does, in the very first sentence no less - you cannot say that your belief system is in any way based on the Bible, or even the Judeo/Christian theological tradition. You cannot say that the Book of Mormon “clarifies” the teachings of Jesus or that the Book of Abraham “builds upon” the books of the Old Testament because concepts like a “chain of gods” or a “Heavenly Father” that was created by another being are flatly, objectively, totally and completely at odds with the fundamental elements of Judeo/Christian theology. And you can see it in the very first sentence of Holy Scripture.
And that is what I would like you to consider. If Mormon doctrine truly does just “clarify” previous teaching… shouldn’t you be able to make it more than one sentence into the Bible before retro-fitting it to comply with revelations that came about three thousand years later? Isn’t that kind of a big clue that Mormon doctrine really is a complete break from the Judeo/Christian theological tradition?
Just think about that for a moment. Mormon theology cannot survive the first sentence of the Bible. You can’t get, say, halfway through the Bible before reading something that plainly conflicts with Mormon theology. Or two-thirds of the way through. Nope, the first theological conflict arrives at… the very first sentence.
Now I would just ask you to consider something with an open mind. Just please, honestly consider the following question, just for a moment:
Doesn’t that seem weird?
Doesn’t that seem weird that in order to reconcile the first sentence of the Bible with Mormon doctrine, you have to believe that the word “beginning” doesn’t mean “beginning” (because if someone else created Heavenly Father, then this scene is Genesis is objectively not the beginning), that the word “God” doesn’t mean “God” (because someone else created the matter that makes up the heavens and earth, God just was the one who organized it), and that the word “created” doesn’t mean “created” (he only organized pre-existing matter).
Isn’t that just a little… weird?
Now obviously, anyone is free to either accept or reject the Book of Genesis specifically and the Bible in general. But if you reject it - as LDS doctrine clearly does, in the very first sentence no less - you cannot say that your belief system is in any way based on the Bible, or even the Judeo/Christian theological tradition. You cannot say that the Book of Mormon “clarifies” the teachings of Jesus or that the Book of Abraham “builds upon” the books of the Old Testament because concepts like a “chain of gods” or a “Heavenly Father” that was created by another being are flatly, objectively, totally and completely at odds with the fundamental elements of Judeo/Christian theology. And you can see it in the very first sentence of Holy Scripture.
And that is what I would like you to consider. If Mormon doctrine truly does just “clarify” previous teaching… shouldn’t you be able to make it more than one sentence into the Bible before retro-fitting it to comply with revelations that came about three thousand years later? Isn’t that kind of a big clue that Mormon doctrine really is a complete break from the Judeo/Christian theological tradition?
C
Croso717
Guest
our teachings do not contradict the first sentence of the bible. it simply means God did not reveal this teaching at the time. he said “In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth…” that was in our beginning this human families’ beginning. i don’t think God would immediately start out with “In the beginning the my father begot thee and exalted thee…” he knows what our minds can comprehend and understand fully i highly doubt God would immediately in the beginning of the Bible reveal the concept of himself having a god and that god having a god and that god having a god and so on and even further reveal that we ourselves can become like him he would teach the most basic teachings of the Gospel first and give us time to understand it then he would reveal more advanced teachings and if we thirst for more knowledge we ask for revelation on it and he would enlighten us.
T
Tony888
Guest
Aren’t you being a bit theatrical Crd2Grv?
The Early Church dealt with plenty of ideas that we now consider ‘so alien’
Were you aware that many early ‘Christian’ gospels were rejected as Cannon/Doctrine?
Have you heard of the Gnostic Gosples?
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Croso,
I’m sorry, I don’t understand why the concept that we mortal men can become “exalted” and get our own spiritual children and organize our own universes is so difficult to understand. It’s actually not that hard at all. You just explained it yourself, completely, in about four paragraphs in this very thread. And we all understand it.
So why, exactly, would that concept have gone completely over the heads of the Hebrews of three thousand years ago? What’s so hard to understand about a panoply of gods in an ascending hierarchy? Answer: Um, nothing. Because guess what? That was pretty much the basis for all human supernatural belief before the Bible was written. It’s not difficult to understand at all.
You know what is a difficult concept for the human brain to understand? One God, who is the Creator of All Things, but He Himself was not created. A single God who brought forth everything - everything that exists everywhere - from nothing. That, frankly, is a much more difficult concept to explain and understand than Mormon cosmology. In fact, you yourself seem unable to understand it right here in this thread.
The only reason Mormon doctrine seems so “alien” (your words) to so many people in the West is because it’s such a radical break from the Judeo/Christian theological tradition, which has become the new “normal” in the three thousand years since the Book of Genesis was written. So your assertion that God wouldn’t have revealed Mormon cosmology from the beginning because it would have been too confusing for the Hebrews rests on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that polytheism or henotheism would have been more difficult for people to understand back then than monotheism.
Furthermore, leaving aside your assertion that “the beginning” doesn’t mean “the beginning,” but really “a beginning” (or, to put it another way, your assertion that “the” doesn’t really mean “the”), how do you reconcile the phrase “God created?” Mormon doctrine is clear: the “Heavenly Father” of this universe did not create the matter that comprises the heavens and the earth. He merely organized pre-existing matter. So both the words “God” and “created” are incorrect, according to Mormon doctrine.
By the way, I see that we’ve now added the word “the” to our list of words that need re-defining in order for the first sentence of Holy Scripture to be reconciled with Mormon doctrine. The list thus far:
I’m sorry, I don’t understand why the concept that we mortal men can become “exalted” and get our own spiritual children and organize our own universes is so difficult to understand. It’s actually not that hard at all. You just explained it yourself, completely, in about four paragraphs in this very thread. And we all understand it.
So why, exactly, would that concept have gone completely over the heads of the Hebrews of three thousand years ago? What’s so hard to understand about a panoply of gods in an ascending hierarchy? Answer: Um, nothing. Because guess what? That was pretty much the basis for all human supernatural belief before the Bible was written. It’s not difficult to understand at all.
You know what is a difficult concept for the human brain to understand? One God, who is the Creator of All Things, but He Himself was not created. A single God who brought forth everything - everything that exists everywhere - from nothing. That, frankly, is a much more difficult concept to explain and understand than Mormon cosmology. In fact, you yourself seem unable to understand it right here in this thread.
The only reason Mormon doctrine seems so “alien” (your words) to so many people in the West is because it’s such a radical break from the Judeo/Christian theological tradition, which has become the new “normal” in the three thousand years since the Book of Genesis was written. So your assertion that God wouldn’t have revealed Mormon cosmology from the beginning because it would have been too confusing for the Hebrews rests on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that polytheism or henotheism would have been more difficult for people to understand back then than monotheism.
Furthermore, leaving aside your assertion that “the beginning” doesn’t mean “the beginning,” but really “a beginning” (or, to put it another way, your assertion that “the” doesn’t really mean “the”), how do you reconcile the phrase “God created?” Mormon doctrine is clear: the “Heavenly Father” of this universe did not create the matter that comprises the heavens and the earth. He merely organized pre-existing matter. So both the words “God” and “created” are incorrect, according to Mormon doctrine.
By the way, I see that we’ve now added the word “the” to our list of words that need re-defining in order for the first sentence of Holy Scripture to be reconciled with Mormon doctrine. The list thus far:
- The
- Beginning
- God
- Created
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Hi Croso,
I also congratulate you on asking the big questions at so young an age.
Here’s something you should consider:
You say that you believe the doctrines of Mormonism and the speculations you have read because you “get good feelings about it”. I hope you realize that people who believe very different things than you do also “get good feelings about it”.
The Muslims get good feelings about the truthfulness of the Koran and they “know” that Muhammed was a true prophet because their good feelings tell them so. Protestants get good feelings about their beliefs and I get wonderfully sweet, deep feelings about my Catholic beliefs. Hindus and atheists experience it too.
The feelings are nice, but they are not a reliable indicator of what is or is not true.
Any psychologist will tell you that what you felt is a psychological phenomenon called “awe and elevation”. It is a very common phenomenon and is often experienced when a person suddenly understands a new and exciting concept that causes a big change in the way he sees the world and himself.
The concept that caused the “awe and elevation” may be true or it may be false. Your brain doesn’t care. It is the newness of the idea and the way it changes your world view that causes the awe and elevation feeling to occur. It is very predictable and can be replicated in a psych lab.
Just something to think about.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
P.S.: Yes, my undergraduate degree was in psychology.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Yes.I have*. Have you heard of the Book of Genesis? Or, perhaps, read the first sentence from it?
(* - I can see why the LDS faith would look kindly on a group of books who’s main theme is “God sent Jesus to Earth so that a select few really smart people can be saved by learning the secret knowledge.” It’s not all that difficult to see why they were rejected as non-canonical and even heretical by the ECFs, though. Say what you will about Jesus, the man didn’t really spend a whole lot of time in the company of the intellectual elite of his time. And his hand-picked apostles were not exactly a murder’s row of galactic-sized brains.)
C
Croso717
Guest
yes you are correct but we all can understand it an plurality of gods and becoming like Him. but he knows that most of the world would not accept it so maybe that’s why he did not reveal it in the very beginning or men would change it up to make it acceptable to them and not God. in other words corrupt it. note:this total guesswork and not LDS Doctrine.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
But why would he think that? The vast majority of the human race was entirely comfortable with both polytheism and henotheism. It was monotheism, and the idea of an Uncaused Cause that would - and did - cause so much confusion. Heck, it took the Hebrews themselves a couple thousand years to fully wrap their minds around that concept - and they were the ones to whom God revealed himself.
There is no reason - none at all - to suspect that the current Mormon cosmology would have been difficult for humans who were alive a few thousand years before Christ to understand. In fact, it would have been far, far easier for them to understand than what Genesis actually does teach.
Also, why would God essentially teach a lie for three thousand years? Wouldn’t a true opening sentence of the creation of our world (according to LDS theology) read, “At some point during history, a created being organized existing matter into the heavens and earth.” The meaning of that sentence doesn’t even resemble “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth.” So why would God teach such a lie? Especially a lie that’s so much more difficult to understand than what you claim the truth is?
I’m sorry, but you just cannot get around the fact that in order to retro-fit Genesis to link with current Mormon doctrine you have to change the definition of * four of the first five words of the Bible.*
C
Croso717
Guest
then how do you know your own religion is true???
T
Tony888
Guest
You completely missed my point, so I will be explicit.
Yes, Genesis is scripture that teaches the beginning of things
I referenced the rejected gosples becasue of your purity claim, that such ideas are so “alien to the Judeo/Christian theological tradition.”
I’m trying to educate you that the Judeo/Chrisitan theological tradition has plenty of experience dealing with non-doctrinal ideas that people speculate on, or fully believe is doctrine.
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
But according to the specifics of Mormon doctrine, it actually doesn’t. It doesn’t teach the beginning of things at all. It teaches - from the very first sentence on - an apparently false version of the beginning of things.
T
Tony888
Guest
stop maniuplating responses for your agenda
Now some questions for you: Which type of Creationist are you?
Are you a Flat Earth Creationist?
- hint: believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament
- hint: accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves.
- hint: believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, . . .
- hint: believe the universe was created young but with the appearance of age,
- hint: believe the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God,
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Yes, Tony. It is we Catholics (and Christians and Jews) who believe that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” means “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” who are “manipulating” things for our “agenda.” You’ve caught us.
Unlike you, I’m not talking about window dressing, here. The official Catholic statement on creationism is basically that Catholics are free to believe whatever they want to believe regarding the timeline between the creation of the universe and now. Because, really, it doesn’t matter.
What Catholics are not free to do, however, if they want to remain in union with the Church, is to believe that there ever was a time when God did not exist. That does matter and so it is an article of faith for Catholics that God has always - truly always, as always as the word always could possibly mean - existed. And it is an article of faith for Catholics (and Jews and Christians), because, unlike your example of the question of the Earth’s age, belief in an eternal* God is foundational. It is an essential piece of the knowledge required to worship God truly. Know how we know that? Because it’s in the first words of the first sentence of the Bible.*
Similarly, the idea that God created all matter from nothing (or, to put it another way, “God created the heavens and earth”) is an article of faith for Catholics (and Jews and Christians), because it goes straight to the core of who God Himself is.
And on those two fundamental points of theology, Catholics and Protestants and Jews are absolutely united. Not so the LDS church. But, again, that’s what happens when you redefine four of the first five words of the Bible.
(* - As in “eternal.” Not as in “probably not eternal because about 10 of our first 11 prophets believed that God was once a mortal man just like us.” That actually doesn’t mean “eternal.” It means the opposite of eternal. But, hey, as long as you’re redefining a whole slew of theological terms, why not toss another one in there?)*
- Status