I found this film online:
- YouTube (short cartoon dramatizing supposed events in Mormon history, SFW, no nudity, mild violence)
Is this an accurate portrayal of LDS/Mormon teachings? If not, is it entirely fabricated, or is it a mix of true and false information?
I’m asking about whether this conforms to teachings, not whether or not it is objectively true history, which obviously would belong in GD.
also who made the film, and did they make one of Islam , Roman Catholics etc…?
I’m not sure. I found it as a suggested related video when browsing YouTube. I did notice that it’s called “The Secret World of Mormonism” and noticed that it speaks of a “starbase”. I didn’t know God needed one of those.
“The Godmakers” cartoon is notorious in Mormon circles as the most virulent anti-Mormon propaganda ever created.
Anyway, there are plenty of inaccuracies, but I’d say about 85% of the clip is true, 10% is exaggeration, and 5% is flat-out false. It presents as facts a bunch of teachings of Brigham Young that Mormons have distanced themselves from, if not outright rejected. The modern Mormon position is that we don’t know anything about God’s previous life as a man, and they don’t believe he physically copulated with Mary.
If something is a cartoon, it’s probably not going to be a good primary resource.
Anyway, robert, you seem to have a lot of questions about Mormons. You might consider consolidating it all in an omnibus “Everything about Mormons” thread.
I’m not a Mormon. But from what I know, it’s kind of accurate, but presented in a slanted way.
Here’s a better cartoon synopsis of what Mormonism is about: South Park - Season 7, Ep. 12 - All About Mormons - Full Episode | South Park Studios US
Since this is a GQ, what do you see as the flat-out false?
Also, then the question is if Mormons claim that the reason they are special is that they have modern prophets giving guidance, and if the second greatest prophet in Mormon history was so completely fucked up, then what is the purpose of having prophets?
That “modern position” is very recent. Even as recent as 25 years ago, when I was active, the teaching was that God had physical sex with Mary. This is along with the teaching about God’s previous life as a man, which it seems that the church would just as rather it go away. So, can you provide a cite for the real Mormon teaching about this? Are there any talks in General Conference by apostles of the Lord disavowing what was said by previous apostles?
God had a previous life as a man? Is this just a Mormon thing?
I disagree 
You Can’t Touch Mormon Jesus
For starters, he screwed up the quote pretty spectacularly at the end. “Joseph Smith has done more to save mankind INCLUDING Jesus Christ.” What a silly way to undermine everything that came before. That’s why Ed Decker doesn’t have a fraction of the respect that the Tanners have.
Secondly, presenting Adam-God theory as though it were current Mormon doctrine. Adam-God is hilariously, spectacularly embarrassing. It doesn’t need any embellishment, but Decker can’t help himself.
I think it’s pretty clear that Mormons used to believe that Mary and God had sexytimes. I also think it’s pretty clear that they don’t want to talk about it anymore and want to distance themselves from that as much as possible. I was always taught that, reading between the lines, that it was God’s spunk but not necessarily the Heavenly Appendage involved. Of course, you know as well as I do that nothing ever has or will be canonized or formalized about embarrassing stuff like this. It’s so much easier to clam up and let their goons at FARMS and FAIR do their unofficial dirty work.
You made me (kinda) defend Mormonism. I’m going to go take a shower.
Yes, Mormons believe God used to be a man and lived on an Earth like ours. They also believe that we can become Gods just like he is and have our own franchise universe.
It’s a concept very unique to Mormonism (as far as I know), but one that they’re embarrassed to talk about in front of others.
Yes, that’s pretty silly of them, especially since Joseph Smith himself said
OK, so they got the quote slightly wrong. So sue them.
They didn’t say that it was current Mormon doctrine. They said that a Mormon prophet taught that. Which is factually true. Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon church taught that, and apparently had the temple ceremony changed to reflect it. For years the Mormon church tried to cover up this embarrassing doctrine, and as of today, they still do not have an answer as to what else of Young’s teaching were as spectacularly wrong. Should anyone who marries a black person be killed, as he taught?
Of course they don’t want to talk about it anymore. At some point they realized the they can make more money by going mainstream, so they tried to pretend that the 1800s didn’t exist, but unfortunately we have records on our side.
Anyway, although DangerMom is usually too busy, maybe she can step in and explain the discrepancy.
Yeah, he got the quote wrong enough to be misleading, which is the pattern with this cartoon. Mostly true, but misleading to newbies, and wrong enough to be dismissed out of hand by believing Mormons. So, doubly useless.
Yes, factually true, but not current doctrine and hasn’t been in a hundred years. This cartoon is intended for people like the OP who will not be able to make this distinction. It’s misleading, end of story. Which, again, is why Ed Decker does more harm than good with his goofy cartoons about a goofy religion. He undermines the credibility of all us ex-Mormons, and personally I resent him for it. He plays right into the hands of those goons in Salt Lake City who can point to him and say, “See, anti-Mormons twist the truth and lie!” The religion is so easily debunked that we don’t need to resort to these semantic tricks. We’re better than this.
Ha. You know that dangermom and Monty avoid these threads like the plague. Sometimes someone else wanders in, but it’s rare.
Wow! That was kinda odd. I’ve heard about The Godmakers for decades, but I’ve never seen it before. I thought it was interesting how coherently they tried to tie all these random bits together.
There is nothing in the video, robert_columbia, that a Mormon hasn’t heard before. But it is way off in presentation. Here are a few points, I’m catching from just watching.
[ul]
[li]They don’t call God Elohim. He is God or Heavenly Father. Elohim is just a Hebrew word for god. And while most Mormons would recognize it they don’t use it.[/li][li]As for the man to God thing, it is basically a true belief, but the cartoon has embellished it. This is about as much detail as church leaders ever went to. “Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all.” - Brigham Young[/li][li]Likewise the use of phrases like Mormon Gods is way off. There are supposedly other gods, but they are entirely irrelevant. They live “elsewhere” and don’t affect us at all. Mormons only worship the Father/Son/HG. And there were no other gods in the great council mentioned. Only God and his spirit children.[/li][li]The council didn’t have a vote. God just chose Jesus’s plan over Lucifer’s. But the gist of the council is right.[/li][li]The black skin this is right… but like a lot of other teachings is not current and is brushed under the rug as past personal opinion not doctrine.[/li][li]Kolob does exist in Mormon scripture, but not as God’s residence instead it is the first creation and closest to God. But it isn’t clear exactly what or where Kolob is. It could be a star. it could be a planet. Heck, it could be another plane of existence. I’m fairly sure it isn’t a star-base.[/li][li]The whole God was Adam and God physically impregnated Mary bits are absolutely denied by the current church. But have been teachings in the past, namely by Brigham Young (the second prophet after Joesph Smith). There was always opposition to them when they were being preached (namely by the Apostle Orson Pratt). So it was never really settled official doctrine.[/li][li]There have been those who claim Jesus had wives and descendants. Marriage is such an important point in Mormon theology, he would almost have to have been married. But I don’t know that it has ever been more than speculation on the part of members. I don’t know that it has even been actual doctrine.[/li][li]The Jesus in America thing is pretty much as taught.[/li][li]And the Joseph Smith thing and current teachings bit are about right. They even got the look of the temple robes down (including the stupid baker’s cap).[/li][li]The final bit is again off though. Joesph’s Smiths blood has no redemptive quality. Only Christ’s does that.[/li][/ul]
“Apostle Orson Pratt”: not sure why, but this made me giggle.
And that when God was a human, he apparently had a pretty buzzing sex life, too? Any word on what his number was?
God only knows…
That statement is not accurate.
{Missed the edit window.}
At any rate, perhaps this statement from the National Conference of Christians and Jews will help the OP:
Plus, the film is brought to you by Ed Decker.
Yeah, it must suck to be villainized as some sort of threat to the institution of marriage.
Oh, the irony, it burns.
This is an old trick by religious groups: Trying to evade criticism by hiding in a crowd.