Was there ever a "first" God of the LDS church?

[zaffiroborant]

I believe most protesters were at Temple Square and LDS administration offices, not at local ward houses.

Either way I find that worse than leaving a BoM, I wouldn’t care for chick protestors outside of Shrine of Christ the King:shrug:

 

[lax16]

Either way I find that worse than leaving a BoM, I wouldn’t care for chick protestors outside of Shrine of Christ the King:shrug:

Leaving a book or literature inside a church takes a lot more nerve than protesting outside of one, IMO. Not that I approve of either one.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Leaving a book or literature inside a church takes a lot more nerve than protesting outside of one, IMO. Not that I approve of either one.

And I feel just the opposite, it’s quite easy to “leave” something behind you, I do it all the time. I don’t know how many times I’ve recovered my missal among other things from the lost and found, my favorite mittens average on day a month at the beginning of the cold season.

Where as standing on a side walk and yelling at people, on their way to a building related to their faith, telling them they are wrong/misguided is just, something I could not do, not that I would leave behind literature.

I would bet that more people have a problem with standing outside religious buildings and condemning the believers than simply leaving literature behind even in churches. An opinion I probably formed due to the fact that I have encountered countless bits of literature (much of it anti-Catholic) on my door, car, tables at restaurants, library books, counter of convenience stores and gas stations. But I have never personally seen a single person stationed outside a religious building preaching against the practices of those in the building.

 

[iepuras]

I didn’t realize Fawn Brodie’s book was considered anti. I’ve not read it myself.

The Apostasy that Wasn’t is on my shelf as well. My son ordered and read it but I haven’t read it yet. I’m curious what your reaction will be. Is it geared towards refuting Mormon claims to the apostasy or is it more general?

Are the Tanner’s considered anti? They are very thorough and charitable in their research and I think considered reputable by most Mormons.

Fawn Brodie is considered “anti” even though she has been vindicated by the essays. The Tanners are very much considered “anti-Mormon”. They are the quintessential anti-Mormons.

The problem with Jane’s categories is that rarely will a Mormon put something into the “critical” category. Most everything will fall into the “anti” category. A third party observer will put much but not all of what is considered “anti” into the critical category.

I am about half way through The Apostasy That Wasn’t. So far I have enjoyed it. So far, it is not particularly geared towards Mormon claims of apostasy. It is pretty general.

 

[jane_doe]

The problem with Jane’s categories is that rarely will a Mormon put something into the “critical” category. Most everything will fall into the “anti” category. A third party observer will put much but not all of what is considered “anti” into the critical category.

Actually, I have encountered many people whom are critical of LDS beliefs, but not anti, including here on this forum.

 

[Marie5890]

I didn’t realize Fawn Brodie’s book was considered anti. I’ve not read it myself.

.

What is unfortunate about labeling Brodie as anti is that she actually had access to the restricted material in the LDS Church archives. David O McKay was her uncle, though she lied and said she was his daughter. Either way, her scholarship is based on authentic material.

Personally, I think she was very courageous to give a more accurate account of who and what Smith was really like compared to the myth that was being taught to the LDS faithful. It takes courage to go against the tide of a misinformed population and then having to deal with being labeled “anti”.

However, it’s a stereotype and label that effectively works, and not just within the LDS community.

I have wanted to read her bio on Thomas Jefferson for some time. Perhaps this summer.

 

[iepuras]

Actually, I have encountered many people whom are critical of LDS beliefs, but not anti, including here on this forum.

Not sure that suffices to answer lax’s question. It is far less specific than your example of the Godmakers as anti. Are there any books out there you would classify as critical but not anti? Maybe now Fawn Brodie can be critical given the LDS church essays?

 

[jane_doe]

Not sure that suffices to answer lax’s question. It is far less specific than your example of the Godmakers as anti. Are there any books out there you would classify as critical but not anti? Maybe now Fawn Brodie can be critical given the LDS church essays?

The GodMakers was an easy example simply because Lax had just mentioned it. Sorry, I don’t keep a record of these examples just on my finger tips. I am not overly familiar with Fawn Brodies’ work. Jana Reiss’ work for example, is frequently critical of LDS, but not anti.

A good example of someone being LDS-critical, but not anti, I would actually point to you Iepuras. You are no fan of LDS and not afraid to speak of your experiences (good and ill). But you always conduct yourself in a fairly Christ-like manner: respectful, truthful, etc. You do not lie, mischaracterize, or rely on putting people down to make yourself look good. Even though we disagree on religion, I have great respect for your views and you as a person.

 

[Horton]

The GodMakers was an easy example simply because Lax had just mentioned it. Sorry, I don’t keep a record of these examples just on my finger tips. I am not overly familiar with Fawn Brodies’ work. Jana Reiss’ work for example, is frequently critical of LDS, but not anti.

A good example of someone being LDS-critical, but not anti, I would actually point to you Iepuras. You are no fan of LDS and not afraid to speak of your experiences (good and ill). But you always conduct yourself in a fairly Christ-like manner: respectful, truthful, etc. You do not lie, mischaracterize, or rely on putting people down to make yourself look good. Even though we disagree on religion, I have great respect for your views and you as a person.

I read Brodie’s book and found it informative regarding the early history of the LDS. I didn’t realize it was considered anti until later. Critical maybe but not anti, I just viewed it as history. I haven’t read The God Makers. I may have check it out.

 

[Marie5890]

I read Brodie’s book and found it informative regarding the early history of the LDS. I didn’t realize it was considered anti until later. Critical maybe but not anti, I just viewed it as history. I haven’t read The God Makers. I may have check it out.

Read it if you want, but it is anti-Mormon, and I wouldn’t bother. And it is full of distortions, lies and half truths when it comes to dealing with Mormonism. And I say that as a former Mormon.

If you want fair and solid scholarly work of Mormonism I would recommend Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History” (it’s about Smith) as well as D Michael Quinn’s books “Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” and “Mormon Hierarchy:Extensions of Power”. They fair and balanced pieces of scholarly work.

I really would not bother with “The Godmakers”

 

[Horton]

Read it if you want, but it is anti-Mormon, and I wouldn’t bother. And it is full of distortions, lies and half truths when it comes to dealing with Mormonism. And I say that as a former Mormon.

If you want fair and scholarly work of Mormonism I would recommend Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History” (it’s about Smith) as well as D Michael Quinn’s books “Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” and “Mormon Hierarchy:Extensions of Power”. They fair and balanced pieces of scholarly work.

I really would not bother with “The Godmakers”

I looked at it on Amazon and it didn’t seem interesting. I did read Fawn Brodie’s book.

 

[Tarquin]

I never met Jerald Tanner, but I met Sandra Tanner a few times during visits to Salt Lake City. She is a very unassuming, cheerful woman, obviously industrious and loyal, and very Christian. It took her and her husband a long, hard time to come to grips with the inconsistencies they saw in Mormon doctrinal and historical claims. They were able to meet with to Church leaders back when they were more accessible. The telling of their journey from faithful Mormons through Mormons who ask questions to people who discover hidden truths, was to me a bit thrilling. They came to a new understanding bit by bit, line upon line, precept upon precept. They had no choice but to reject claims which history proved false.

I had hoped more would be said of Mormonism’s failure to find God the Creator, and the Mormon concept of the nature of God (philosophically impoverished as it is - that’s not bashing, that’s describing; if it’s wrong, I look forward to an official Mormon presentation on the nature of God) in this thread. I would hope for information to help Mormons clarify their understanding of God. Unfortunately, I have found that reason does not work. But does it ever when it comes to politics and religion? I don’t think so. I think partial-reasoning becomes a tool to argue one’s own position. Less often, reasoning is used to actually decide between two courses (in religion or political philosophy).

There is no first God in Mormonism, so “God” is less than the universe, has less value than the universe. He can have no more value than all the other Gods equal to him. So if there are or will be a trillion Gods, “God” has the value of one-trillionth of a Supreme Deity, or actually one-trillionth of that *minus * all the other independent values of the universe: “intelligences”, matter, Priesthood (exists prior to and independently of goddom), and time. “God” is a prisoner of time. Since there is an endless lineage of Gods, the actual value of our “God” becomes not one over a trillion, but one over infinity.