Understanding Mormonism

[BDawg]

You mean that your celestial family relations will include sex and procreation, while ours will not. That’s what Mormonism boils down to in the end - eternal sex.

Correction–that’s what it boils down to for disgruntled ex-Mormons who want to say something offensive about their former faith.

 

[Jerusha]

Correction–that’s what it boils down to for disgruntled ex-Mormons who want to say something offensive about their former faith.

No, that is what it boils down to for those who look at Mormonism’s origins and early years. The faith that always changes, and is never the same.

 

[TexanKnight]

Correction–that’s what it boils down to for disgruntled ex-Mormons who want to say something offensive about their former faith.

Wrong. That is LDS doctrine. And, it includes polygamy in heaven.

Remember all you non-LDS…Polygamy is STILL an LDS doctrine. It is simply not practiced

 

[TexanKnight]

and by the way…I am not an ex-disgruntled member. I am very gruntled. I am very much at peace for leaving.

 

[Stephen168]

If I thought that the aim of lawyers in general was to discern truth, maybe I would be impressed with your pronouncement.

Which doesn’t refute his position.

Correction--that’s what it boils down to for disgruntled ex-Mormons who want to say something offensive about their former faith.

But you didn’t correct anything he wrote.

It does give us some help in ‘understanding Mormonism.’

 

[BDawg]

Wrong. That is LDS doctrine. And, it includes polygamy in heaven.

Remember all you non-LDS…Polygamy is STILL an LDS doctrine. It is simply not practiced

Ummm… suppose you are right that “eternal sex” is “doctrine,” rather than something a few early Mormon leaders speculated about. (And they never said “eternal sex”. They just thought that people with anthropomorphic bodies must use them in the normal way.) How does it follow that this is “what Mormonism boils down to in the end”? I have never heard any Mormon say that’s what our faith boils down to.

It seems like the equivalent would be Mormons saying that “what Catholicism boils down to” is “eternal castration” or “eternal sexless God-staring”, or whatever. Is it based on something Catholics actually believed? Sure. And yet, it would be offensive to Catholics to put it that way, and no Catholic would say that “eternal sexlessness” is “what Catholicism boils down to.”

So if I were to go about saying such things, that would make me… a jerk. That’s all.

 

[BDawg]

Which doesn’t refute his position.

But you didn’t correct anything he wrote.

It does give us some help in ‘understanding Mormonism.’

Stephen,

What did TK say that I need to correct? He said Joseph Smith had a bunch of different accounts of his first vision. What he didn’t do was show that they were contradictory. And by “contradictory,” I mean that some substantive detail in one account is shown to directly contradict another account, not that some detail was mentioned in one account, but not another. E.g., some people say that the Gospels contradict one another because one mentions one angel appearing at Jesus’ tomb, and another mentions two angels. To me, that isn’t necessarily a contradiction. Don’t you agree?

On the other hand, some people mention the fact that Acts 9:7 states that the men with Paul heard a voice. In contrast, Acts 22:9 states that the men did not hear or understand the voice. I have seen a number of Christians try to explain this away, but it seems to me that they are trying way too hard. Is it really so important if there is some minor contradiction? But a lawyer like TK would have a ball with that.

What you need to understand is that Mormonism has no doctrine of “infallibility”. As far as we’re concerned, there can be human mistakes in our scriptures, and living prophets can express opinions based on limited knowledge. And yet, scriptures and prophets are “trustworthy” for the same reason my doctor is “trustworthy”, i.e., he knows way more than I do, even if he’s not infallible. In any case, the whole point of prophets and scriptures is to lead us to develop our own relationship with God, complete with personal revelation. To the extent we do that, we don’t need anyone else to tell us God is there, and what he wants us to do. So God lets us feel after him as imperfect beings helping one another in an imperfect world.

Maybe you don’t like that. In my experience, some Catholics can’t imagine putting trust in anything that isn’t absolutely infallible, at least for religious purposes. From my perspective, however, it seems like these Catholics are trying way too hard to explain away the contradictions that arise simply because Popes and Councils are humans.

 

[Jerusha]

Your post reveals the continuing LDS obsession on sexuality. It is really not that important a part of life. And we still do not know much about the afterlife.

Romans 8: 25
I Cor 2: 9
I Cor 13:12
II Cor 4: 18
I Timothy 6: 16

 

[BDawg]

Your post reveals the continuing LDS obsession on sexuality. It is really not that important a part of life. And we still do not know much about the afterlife.

Really? My post, where I said that Mormons don’t go around saying that “eternal sex” is “what Mormonism boils down to”, reveals “the continuing LDS obsession on sexuality”?

Because I thought I was saying that we’re not as obsessed with it as some people were making it sound.

Tell me, Jerusha, why does every comment I make send you into a tizzy about OTHERS’ sexual “obsession”? Is there some underlying issue here that we can explore in this forum? We’re all here to help if you want to get something off your chest.

 

[Barbkw]

I didn’t realize it until the program aired it, but apparantly Smith’s theory was that God the Father was once a man who progressed into being God.

Which, I’m uncertain if God the Father’s mom and dad would then have been also in this transistion phase or they would have been gods too.

Confusing to think about.

Personally, I think Joseph Smith was ingesting forest mushrooms.

And, is it right, that Smith thought God the Holy Spirit had physical sex with Mary?

 

[David]

I didn’t realize it until the program aired it, but apparantly Smith’s theory was that God the Father was once a man who progressed into being God.

I just so confusing that Mormons believe in “eternal progression”, although Joseph Smith wrote the following:

“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18); “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

Peace
David

 

[BDawg]

I didn’t realize it until the program aired it, but apparantly Smith’s theory was that God the Father was once a man who progressed into being God.

Which, I’m uncertain if God the Father’s mom and dad would then have been also in this transistion phase or they would have been gods too.

Confusing to think about.

Personally, I think Joseph Smith was ingesting forest mushrooms.

And, is it right, that Smith thought God the Holy Spirit had physical sex with Mary?

Hi Barbkw,

To understand the Latter-day Saint doctrine of God, you have to understand the following passage from Brigham Young (one of our prophets):

If men are faithful, the time will come when they will possess the power and the knowledge to obtain, organize, bring into existence, and own. “What, of themselves, independent of their Creator?” No. But they and their Creator will always be one, they will always be of one heart and of one mind, working and operating together; for whatsoever the Father doeth so doeth the son, and so they continue throughout all their operations to all eternity. (Journal of Discourses 2:304)

So what did God’s parents do next? To us, the answer is, “Who cares?” “Gods” are all one in each other. That’s what eternal life is all about, so trying to nail down which person did what when in all cases is a bit pointless from our perspective. It absolutely doesn’t matter for our purposes.

To us, eternal life (i.e., becoming absolutely ONE with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is a fulfillment of Jesus’ intercessory prayer, in which he asked that his disciples “all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. . . . And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:21—22).

I understand that Catholics understand this differently–i.e., that Jesus didn’t really mean that humans can be one with God and each other in the same way the Father and Son are one in each other. Fine–we all take some things figuratively in the scriptures, so I’m not going to argue that you aren’t allowed to in this case.

However, if you really want to understand where we’re coming from, and not just pick at us so you can put us down, you have to understand that we believe God IS ONE. That is, there is a sense in which there is “One God” that is made up of more than one “Person”. Sound familiar? It should be, but the real difference between us is that Catholics believe that the multiple “Persons” who are God are a single Being. LDS do not believe this.

 

[BDawg]

I just so confusing that Mormons believe in “eternal progression”, although Joseph Smith wrote the following:

“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18); “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

Peace
David

Mormons read that to mean God is morally constant.

 

[Barbkw]

… you have to understand that we believe God IS ONE. That is, there is a sense in which there is “One God” that is made up of more than one “Person”. Sound familiar? It should be, but the real difference between us is that Catholics believe that the multiple “Persons” who are God are a single Being. LDS do not believe this.

True, that’s a problem. But the even larger one is the physical sex with Mary.

And that each Mormon man can become a God.

 

[TexanKnight]

I’ve seen people do a fairly good job of showing contradictions between the Gospels, too. If I thought that the aim of lawyers in general was to discern truth, maybe I would be impressed with your pronouncement.

Ah…the Gospels red herring. Let’s see how this typical LDS Argument works…

4 Gospels written by 4 different people- some contradictions.

9 First vision versions all by the same person- several contradictions.

hmmmm…4 people and contradictions and 1 person with many contradictions…yes…I can see the comparison.

Please try better.

And as to your attorney comment…I am aware of the personal attacks by LDS when they are cornered. Please try your best to refrain from them. I DO strive for truth, even of you have a problem with truth

 

[TexanKnight]

Ummm… suppose you are right that “eternal sex” is “doctrine,” rather than something a few early Mormon leaders speculated about. (And they never said “eternal sex”. They just thought that people with anthropomorphic bodies must use them in the normal way.) How does it follow that this is “what Mormonism boils down to in the end”? I have never heard any Mormon say that’s what our faith boils down to.

It seems like the equivalent would be Mormons saying that “what Catholicism boils down to” is “eternal castration” or “eternal sexless God-staring”, or whatever. Is it based on something Catholics actually believed? Sure. And yet, it would be offensive to Catholics to put it that way, and no Catholic would say that “eternal sexlessness” is “what Catholicism boils down to.”

So if I were to go about saying such things, that would make me… a jerk. That’s all.

First, another red herring. You try to deflect from your teaching by dragging in alleged Catholic teaching. It is a common LDS tactic that is pretty old around here. Slice it however you, LDS believe that polygamy exists in heaven and that you will need to populate a world with Spirit Children. Sorry you took offense to someone calling it eternal sex, but, in reality, it is that very thing

 

[BDawg]

First, another red herring. You try to deflect from your teaching by dragging in alleged Catholic teaching. It is a common LDS tactic that is pretty old around here. Slice it however you, LDS believe that polygamy exists in heaven and that you will need to populate a world with Spirit Children. Sorry you took offense to someone calling it eternal sex, but, in reality, it is that very thing

So was I wrong about the “alleged Catholic teaching”? Will there be male and female angels whose parts just don’t work… or do something else?

Honestly, I didn’t mean to mischaracterize Catholic teaching, so if you can correct a misimpression, please do.

 

[TexanKnight]

So was I wrong about the “alleged Catholic teaching”? Will there be male and female angels whose parts just don’t work… or do something else?

Honestly, I didn’t mean to mischaracterize Catholic teaching, so if you can correct a misimpression, please do.

Not adressing your issue. It is a red herring designed to deflect from the argument. LDS Tactic 14. Not gonna play along.

The bottom line, we were correct

 

[BDawg]

Ah…the Gospels red herring. Let’s see how this typical LDS Argument works…

4 Gospels written by 4 different people- some contradictions.

9 First vision versions all by the same person- several contradictions.

hmmmm…4 people and contradictions and 1 person with many contradictions…yes…I can see the comparison.

Please try better.

And as to your attorney comment…I am aware of the personal attacks by LDS when they are cornered. Please try your best to refrain from them. I DO strive for truth, even of you have a problem with truth

Well, at least you admit that there are some contradictions in the Gospels. You haven’t produced any from Joseph Smith’s first vision accounts, though. I’m sure you are aware of the fact that people often recollect different details of the same occurrence at different times, and may even contradict themselves on minor details, even when they are trying to recall everything as accurately as possible. Certainly an upstanding lawyer wouldn’t blow something like that out of proportion, would he?

 

[BDawg]

Not adressing your issue. It is a red herring designed to deflect from the argument. LDS Tactic 14. Not gonna play along.

The bottom line, we were correct

Lawyer Tactic 14,389,672. When an opponent brings up a valid point, brush it off as a “red herring” without explaining why it is a red herring.