Mormon Church Trying to Keep the Wheels On

[TOmNossor]

“Eternal progression” is one I see cited often by Mormons when contemplating, “why stay?”.

I suspect you would include it in “fullness”.

I typically speak of “humans becoming gods.”
I consider this a restoration of what was originally taught.
The early church believed that whatever Christ was we would become.

I can acknowledge a truth in what you say. I remember telling a Catholic friend that it only made sense to me that God would desire to give us all He had including divinity AND that it only made sense that if He was omnipotent, He could. This Catholic friend replied such was truth within Catholicism and would not be a sufficient discriminator for me to choose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Few Catholics agree with him, but Daniel Keating who wrote Deification and Grace comes close.
The big differences that still SHOULD be acknowledged are the ORIGINAL state of man and God. The Early Church didn’t believe in creation ex nihilo as assessed by many non-LDS scholars and this is important IMO.
Let me say, because it is important to Stephen168, that I reject the teaching that God the Father has a Father (which has been taught by LDS prophets after Joseph Smith until a few decades ago), and I also reject the idea that God the Father was ever merely a man.

And let me conclude by restating, no rational person would conclude that the CoJCoLDS is obviously false, but that this false religion teaches a cool doctrine so they will maintain that this false religion is true. That makes no sense to me.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t see that Mormons want to give up the idea that they are going to be gods.

Do you think what it means to become god is changing within Mormonism? Does it still mean what Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow said it meant?

 

[TOmNossor]

The Jockers study says it all.

I am familiar. As the emotionally stunted fellow (and emoji stunted for sure), I am not sure if you are kidding or not, but I lean towards kidding!
Ha ha.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Two things for you to consider:

1. When a Mormon ceases to believe and defend the idea that they can become a god, they cease to be Mormon.
2. Not everyone who has left Mormonism has stopped believing every Mormon teaching. In my own experience, I’d say it is more common for people, intentionally and unintentionally, to hang onto Mormon teachings. Even people who insist they are not Mormon at all, it can take years to get the Mormon out. Your belief that people leave Mormonism and cease to believe everything it teaches, is just not the reality of leaving Mormonism.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

I don’t see that Mormons want to give up the idea that they are going to be gods.

Do you think what it means to become god is changing within Mormonism? Does it still mean what Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow said it meant?

I think it depends on which individual Mormon you ask.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It was a face for the Mormon rebuttal. Which is along the lines, that textual analysis cannot reveal anything about authorship because it’s a translation that is being analyzed. One of my favorite rebuttals because it just tickles my funny bone.

 

[Stephen168]

I think it depends on which individual Mormon you ask.

It would seem the god of Mormonism is currently in flux. You can choose the god that will keep you Mormon!?

 

[RuthAnne]

Do you think what it means to become god is changing within Mormonism? Does it still mean what Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow said it meant?

Don Lattin: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’’ Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Don Lattin: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.

 

[GKMotley]

Mormons are motley?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormons are motley?

• @Stephen168

They have a framework of orthodoxy. Mormons can and do believe differently, while keeping within the orthodox frame.They only get into trouble when they publicly preach something that is contrary to the views of the current leadership.

Joseph Smith Lorenzo Snow, etc taught that their God was once a man. Now Mormon leadership says maybe that isn’t so. So you have some Mormons that believe and follow Smith and some Mormons who reject what Smith taught, because it became ok to do so on this topic.

Individual Mormons will tell you different things about what they believe on this topic. And some will profess differently based on if they are speaking with other Momons or with non Mormons.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ:

I think it depends on which individual Mormon you ask.

It would seem the god of Mormonism is currently in flux. You can choose the god that will keep you Mormon!?

Mormonism has always allowed wide range of belief. For Smith there was no creed. For Smith freedom in religion meant believing whatever you want and his group of followers believed a wide range of things. The commonality was believing in the Book of Mormon and Smith being a prophet. Otherwise you rarely see Smith expounding on required doctrines of belief. He focused on orthopraxy (right behavior), and orthopraxy still holds more importance in Mormonism than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy only being important for a few teachings.

Brigham Young changed that abundantly, and preached a litany of required belief, including polygamy as the new and everlasting covenant, his Adam-God doctrine and the continuity of Smith’s teaching that their God was once a man.

The current Utah based branch of Smith’s church imposes more required belief than Smith ever would have. But it retains Smith’s teachings on personal revelation. That is, every individual will receive spiritual guidance via prayer, for every doctrinal question. In that view, individual Mormons in Smith’s time and now, are the same. So there are Mormons today who have received different guidance compared to their contemporaries and their predecessors, who followed previous leaders and different teachings. And so they believe a wide variety of ideas, some of which will get them into trouble if they preach their personally revealed ideas, publically.

 

[TOmNossor]

Two things for you to consider:

1. When a Mormon ceases to believe and defend the idea that they can become a god, they cease to be Mormon.
2. Not everyone who has left Mormonism has stopped believing every Mormon teaching. In my own experience, I’d say it is more common for people, intentionally and unintentionally, to hang onto Mormon teachings. Even people who insist they are not Mormon at all, it can take years to get the Mormon out. Your belief that people leave Mormonism and cease to believe everything it teaches, is just not the reality of leaving Mormonism.

I suspect there are some examples of #1 and I imagine #2 is common.
I am not sure how that impacts what I have been saying.
Folks who leave cease to believe the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS do a handful of things. For my purposes, they either continue to attend and present to family and friends that they believe or they cease to attend and present to family and friends that they don’t believe.

I am suggesting that neither group of people says to themselves, “Becoming a god is really awesome. It is clear the CoJCoLDS is not true, but I will stay because I like the idea of becoming a god.” If one believes it is not true, one can stay because it is a good social structure for this life (or to placate their relatives or …); but one cannot rationally stay for post-mortal rewards promised by an untrue religion.

I regularly see how somehow the intellectual rigor of my position is lacking. Perhaps that is the case here, but I surely do not see it.
Charity, TOm

 

[GKMotley]

Yep. Mormons are motley.

 

[TOmNossor]

It was a face for the Mormon rebuttal. Which is along the lines, that textual analysis cannot reveal anything about authorship because it’s a translation that is being analyzed. One of my favorite rebuttals because it just tickles my funny bone.

I think I have only commented on these studies once in my time here. And I thought someone was refering to them when it now seems like they were not.
I said I was not too impressed.
The majority of studies have been used to support the idea that Joseph Smith AND NONE of his contemporaries were the primary voices in the Book of Mormon.
I presently find the amount of evidence building up for the studies that support Early Modern English as the language of the Book of Mormon to be the lastest piece of evidence that says SOMETHING, but at the least says that nobody in the 19th century was responsible for the Book of Mormon.
Historians (non-believing) have largely abandoned the non-Jospeh Smith 19th century authorship thesis because it is so at odds with the historical data we have.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

More like unusually rigid than lacking rigour.

You can google for yourself, why doubting Mormons stay. You’ll see eternal progression, as a factor in the decision to stay. You seem to think that means people stay to follow something they don’t believe. I’m saying they stay because they like the idea of becoming a god. It’s appealing at a personal level, not as a spiritual truth, per se.

I agree few Mormons blurt right out, “I want to b a god!” It is implicit, in everything Mormons do and believe. It is a drawing idea for future converts and a holding idea for people who are having a hard time staying Mormon. It’s the flame for the Mormon-minded moth, if that helps at all.

 

[lilypadrees]

the Christian world knows the BOM is not the word of God.

Not the word of God. Not “another testament of Jesus Christ.” But definitely, as you stated so well, “a work of fiction that is highly plagiarized from other works.”

 

[NeuroTypical]

Many of us do believe this is about the reward for the LDS. The power of being a god. For Christians all we desire is to be in the presence of God, the beatific vision, not to rule anything, to let go of worries, cares, concerns, and just be, no one higher or lower than the other, all souls equally beautiful with God. But that is not how the LDS see it. They see a ruling class hierarchy continuing the same sort of subjugation that is here on earth.

I’ll never get used to hearing myself referred to in the third person on this board, I guess. [Waves hand] Hi Horton! I’m right here! You keep talking about what “the LDS” believe and how “they” see things. Just wanted to stop by and mention I’ve been one of “them” for many decades now, and I honestly see kind of the exact opposite of what you’re claiming is the norm. I’ve had umpteen thousands of interactions with hundreds of hundreds of LDS friends, family, teachers, leaders, and fellow churchgoers. I can count on two hands, the number of times exaltation has come up outside of the temple. I’ve never encountered someone eagerly anticipating the more Godlike stuff that would come from Christ’s promise to make us joint heirs with him, inheriting all the Father hath. In my 20+ years of activity I’ve lived in 5 different places, and encountered LDS folks in six different states and four different countries.

I guess somewhere there might be an LDS person or two, rubbing their hands together gleefully and eagerly awaiting the ability to form planets and stuff. I’ve just never met one or heard of one.

When I think about how I’m living my life, and my end goal, I honestly see myself kneeling at the feet of my Master, hoping to hear the words “well done, thou good and faithful servant”. Don’t really have much in the way of plans or hopes beyond that.

Can you accept that you might just plain be wrong about what we supposedly all think on this subject, Horton?

 

[Stephen168]

Mormonism has always allowed wide range of belief. For Smith there was no creed. For Smith freedom in religion meant believing whatever you want and his group of followers believed a wide range of things. The commonality was believing in the Book of Mormon and Smith being a prophet. Otherwise you rarely see Smith expounding on required doctrines of belief. He focused on orthopraxy (right behavior), and orthopraxy still holds more importance in Mormonism than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy only being important for a few teachings.

It does seem that the only people Joseph Smith excommunicated were people who doubted he was a prophet.

The current Utah based branch of Smith’s church imposes more required belief than Smith ever would have. But it retains Smith’s teachings on personal revelation. That is, every individual will receive spiritual guidance via prayer, for every doctrinal question. In that view, individual Mormons in Smith’s time and now, are the same. So there are Mormons today who have received different guidance compared to their contemporaries and their predecessors, who followed previous leaders and different teachings. And so they believe a wide variety of ideas, some of which will get them into trouble if they preach their personally revealed ideas, publicly.

This reminded me of the history of ‘authority’ in the Mormon Church both “apostolic” and the Melchizedek priesthood. The early Mormon church claimed no authority only a desire for the ’spiritual gifts’ found in the early Apostolic Christian Church. One of the gifts was everybody could receive revelation. All revelation was accepted in the first few years until authority became a thing in the late 1830’s.

 

[Horton]

So everyone who is not LDS is not rational? That is some claim to make Tom considering how few Mormons there are in relation to the world.

The completely unbiblical concept of the LDS eternal life is irrational, which the majority of Christians find ridiculous. And please don’t trot out the obscure writings that don’t really say what you think they do.

 

[TOmNossor]

So everyone who is not LDS is not rational? That is some claim to make Tom considering how few Mormons there are in relation to the world.

The completely unbiblical concept of the LDS eternal life is irrational, which the majority of Christians find ridiculous. And please don’t trot out the obscure writings that don’t really say what you think they do.

I made no such claim.
In response to you claiming certainty based solely on your intellectual understanding of Catholicism and the CoJCoLDS I claimed that you denied Catholic dogma and that a Catholic priest verified that you were in error.
Here is where a LDS quoted me explaining that the issues are complex and Catholics frequently claim to know that Catholicism is true and yet they don’t even know Catholic history or dogma.
Here is where you tell that LDS (and presumably me) that what I claimed was Catholic dogma was in fact not Catholic dogma. You do this even though the CONTEXT of my claim is that this is a FREQUENT error for Catholics.
Here is where the Catholic priest confirms that the two LDS are correct and you (and another Catholic are mistaken when it comes to the understanding of Catholic dogma in this area.

I am suggesting that you should modify your intellectual certainty.
I do not think I have EVER suggested that “everyone who is not LDS is not rational.” I think you need to read closer.
In fact, if you do read more closely and you do in fact see that I have NEVER made such a claim, you might be inclined to reassess the CERTAINTY you place in your assessments. These are complex issues. That is why I claim that I find the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS to be much more likely, but my intellect is not such that I claim through it alone I can be certain. I do not think it is a good conclusion for you to be certain for intellectual reasons only as you claimed.
Charity, TOm