[moderating]
I think this thread has gone about as far as it can in GQ. It’s Great Debates time.
[/moderating]
[quote=“Bartman, post:13, topic:604837”]
…[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][/QUOTE]
In point of fact, McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine 1958 edition taught this as almost doctrine. David O. McKay, president of the church at the time, saw it he had Spencer Kimball work with McConkie to edit out some of the points either to course or outright false doctrine.
I think this is a classic case in point of the tenor of the whole GodMakers cartoon. The National Conference of Christians and Jews really got it right. There are enough ‘facts’ in the cartoon to sound authoritative, but the consequence is a disgustingly perversion of LDS Doctrine.
True enough, that would make the argument an ad hominem. On the other hand, a Roman Catholic who finds himself the target of the same group or individual, and seeing the inaccuracies at his faith, will wonder at the accuracy of the Mormon hit. It would still be an ad hominem, but don’t you think that person would look deeper into the points of attack against the JW or LDS or RC or Jew?
Basically, TGM, especially the cartoon part, takes basic facts & portrays them as outrageously as possible. The one outright error of fact AFAIK is the claim that the LDS claims Joseph Smith as a descendant of Jesus. It may be possible but I’ve never seen evidence for it, not do I think it’s even mentioned in the Ed Dekker-Dave Hunt book version of TGM.
As to, have the makers of the film made films about Islam & Catholicism?
Islam, yes. And Jeremiah Films has a ‘Pagan Origins of Christmas’ film which is probably not too pro-Catholic.
Interestingly, while Patrick Matrisciana is head of Jeremiah Films, there is also Caryl Productions, headed by his wife (?ex?) Caryl who WAS the singer of Beethoven’s Ninth in the Korova Milkbar scene in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Her CP does have some anti-Catholic films.
The claim comes from an interpretation of D&C 113:1-6. The scripture, to me, seems pretty ambiguous.
We know that Joseph Smith claimed to be a descendant of the Joseph in the bible, but I’m not aware of any other sources where he also claimed Jesus as an ancestor. Mind you, it wouldn’t surprise me given how megalomaniacal he was, but I don’t think there’s any evidence.
Why the worry about ‘facts’ when it comes to religion? Does it matter that Joseph Smith never claimed to be a descendant of Jesus when he was such a charlatan about everything else? It’s like arguing about how long is the tail that is attached to the elephant in your living room, when the most important thing is that there’s a frikken elephant in the living room!
The Joseph part does not surprise me at all. It does corroborate the Anglo-Israelite strain I have noticed from several LDS sources, also. (I have been glancing at W. Cleon Skousen’s 5,000 Year Leap, which has a chapter on it & was even preached upon by the Armstrong-splinter United Church of God.)
This is the first time I’ve watched this complete chunk of video. I’ve seen clips before.
Short answer: this is about as accurate as a negative political ad. Basically even the things that are correct are intermingled with errors. I took note of all the claims about Mormons, and if I have the energy, I’ll list them with explanation, T/F etc. later tonight.
As for dangermom, she largely stays away from GD generally. Neither of us are fond of this kind of thread simply because it’s so exhausting to respond to all of the claims at some point. Again, if I have the energy I’ll attempt at least what’s in this cartoon.
You know, we’re only going to have more and more public/media scrutiny of Mormonism in the coming year, if Romney gets the GOP nomination, which I expect he will. So, expect a lot more of threads about it, but that’ll be the least of it.
Hah, you know we did this dance 4 years ago. Search for threads back then. Also, unless the press asks Harry Reid about it, I don’t really care what people have to say.
The first question I have for the OP is, do you care which parts Mormons teach (that is, official doctrine, teachings, etc.) vs. which parts are believed by some members? Folk beliefs are far and wide. People put their ideas out all the time, but if it’s not in LDS scripture or officially taught by the leadership, it’s silly to claim that “Mormons believe” something. Note that where I say something is “true” I’m only saying it’s true that we Mormons believe/teach it.
We start with:
[ol]
[li]trillions of planets throughout the cosmos are ruled by Gods who were once human like us[/li]A: Massive mischaracterization. Yes, we believe that the ultimate goal of this life is to be exalted to live like God lives. Does that mean that there are planets in our universe that are populated by others who have progressed like this, and that our Heavenly Father has peers? Nope. We simply don’t know any details beyond what I’ve posted.
[li]Long ago, a God and his wife conceived a spirit child called Elohim, who went through mortal life like us, was exalted and that’s who Mormons believe is God[/li]A: Massive mischaracterization. We believe “As Man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” We know nothing about God that may have come “before” (how does time even work in this case?) he is now. In Hebrew, Elohim is the word used to refer to God in the OT (the ‘im’ ending is plural, and as I understand it, it’s generally considered an honorific like the royal ‘we’ in English). We use it to refer to God sometimes, but rarely.
[li]The Mormon celestial kingdom includes endless celestial sex.[/li]A: Entirely made up. We have no idea if what we know as sexual relations exist in eternity. We do believe that the male/female identity is eternal, and that marriages can exist beyond this life, but that’s it.
[li]Before mortality, the gods came together and the head of the gods proposed the mortal existence we have now.[/li]A: half right. LDS doctrine is that as spirit children we were presented with this plan. There was no “council of gods” as presented in the animation.
[li]The vote that followed approved Jesus’ plan.[/li]A: A common error. It was Heavenly Father’s plan, and we consented to it. The animation correctly notes that Lucifer proposed that he would change the plan to save everyone. It was core to the plan that we retained our free choice, however and because he did not consent to the plan, he and all who agreed with him were cast out, didn’t get born on Earth, etc.
[li]Those neutral in the vote were born black, as punishment.[/li]A: Folk doctrine, never taught by the church. Most popularly believed by Bruce R. McConkie, but he was wrong. I don’t know how common it was for LDS leadership to direct members to correct doctrinal errors in their books, but the leadership did so for McConkie’s unfortunately titled “Mormon Doctrine”. (The book was like an extended concordance, and included lots of his own opinions that weren’t doctrine, including his criticism of Evolution even though the LDS church explicitly holds no official position on Evolution.)
[li]The most valiant were born into Mormon families and were white.[/li]A: I’ve never even heard this one. It’s frequently taught that many of the valiant spirits were held back for this last period before the end times. However the question of skin tone or being born into LDS families is something new to me.
[li]Adam-God (the idea that Brigham Young taught that Adam who was in the mortal world, husband of Eve, etc.) was the same individual as Elohim, or God.[/li]A: This is a favorite of anti-Mormon literature, but I’ve never even heard of an LDS believing it. It comes from two ambiguous passages in the Journal of Discourses (an effort to transcribe many talks of early LDS leaders, the most prolific of which included Brigham Young and Orson Pratt). Talks by Young both before and after these make it clear that he believed Adam and God were two distinct individuals. Why Decker is so fixated on it, I don’t know.
[li]God had physical intercourse with Mary to conceive Jesus[/li]A: Totally false, though it appears to have been folk doctrine at some point. I have encountered at least one person who believed this, but it crumbled as soon as I asked the most basic questions. We do believe that Jesus had no mortal father, and that he inherited mortality from his mother and immortality from his father (though it seems unlikely that his genetic heritage is what caused that). Church members may simply conclude that there had to be a physical act to conceive, but it was never taught, and we now know that even humans can procreate without intercourse (with IVF). Surely the creator could cause Jesus to be conceived without any carnal act.
[li]Orson Pratt taught that Jesus was married (specifically to Mary & Martha, and Mary Magdalene) and had children[/li]A: Not taught officially, but commonly believed (though the specific wife of Jesus is speculation). Orson Pratt did indeed teach this. It’s entirely supposition, because we don’t have any revelation or historical accounts to support it. We don’t really see this as something outrageous, because we don’t see anything wrong with marriage or children, and if Jesus was our exemplar, it would make sense for him to have a family as well.
[li]Joseph Smith claimed that he was descended from Jesus[/li]A: I’ve never heard of this. I recall a quote from Pratt that went something like “Jesus had seed, and when the appropriate time comes, they will be known.” But I’ve never heard the claim for Joseph outside of this cartoon.
[li]In 421 AD, according to the Book of Mormon (BoM) the dark-skinned Lamanites defeated the light-skinned Nephites[/li]A: Partially true. The BoM does have an account of a war between the two named groups until the Nephites were eradicated save Moroni. However, by then the account specifically says that the labels Nephite/Lamanite referred to whether the groups believed in Jesus or fought against his believers. (The names Nephi and Laman refer to brothers at the beginning of the BoM narrative, Nephi following teachings of righteousness with his allies, Laman and his allies rebelling.)
[li]Moroni buried his record on golden plates in the hill Cumorah[/li]A: True
[li]Joseph Smith was a treasure seeker known for his tall tales[/li]A: Half true. Joseph and many contemporaries were excited about digging for buried treasure. The only account I’m aware of his being “known for tall tales” was by one person in affidavit who contradicted himself.
[li]Joseph Smith had visions of the spirit world[/li]A: Bizarre. While we do have a spot in our theology for where spirits reside, Joseph never claimed to have visions from there.
[li]Through temple rituals, Mormons prove their worthiness to become Gods[/li]A: Twisting the story. We believe that simple temple rituals are like baptism – ordinances we’ve been commanded to perform. They don’t “prove” anything, but are more like signing a contract that God has put forth that our salvation is conditional upon. It’s similar to what Protestants often have criticized Catholics of – that anything done by a priest is a “work” that Catholics claim is necessary, but God doesn’t require works, etc.
[li]Everyone must stand judged by Joseph Smith, the “Mormon Jesus” and Elohim[/li]A: False. Jesus is identified as judge several times in scripture and official teachings. Some people have speculated that judgement is also from Joseph Smith since he’s the prophet who restored the priesthood ordinances that we have now (as Moses did in his time, etc.). It’s folk doctrine at best.
[li]Couples sealed in the temple expect to become polygamous Gods over their own planet and spawn new families throughout eternity.[/li]A: Twisted. We don’t believe that all marriages end at death, and plural marriages have sometimes been sanctioned. Hence some plural marriages will continue after this life. However, there’s no expectation of it if it doesn’t exist in this life. We do believe that exaltation means living live like God lives it, hence doing the kind of thing God does now.
[/ol]
Decker and his ilk seem to try to present us as some sort of sex cult, and try to inject sex into everything. We don’t consider sex inside marriage to be a bad thing, and I’m kind of left wondering at how health his marriage is.
While possibly never taught as OFFICIAL LDS doctrine, (though I am pretty sure Brigham Young held these or other very similar ideas, and as a “Prophet, Seer & Revelator” he ought to know, eh?) for you to claim that these two specific beliefs were not fully, completely entrenched in popular Mormon theology right up until the 1960’s (or even 1970’s) is incredibly disingenuous.
Just about everything that emarkp objects to was at one time a belief of the Mormon Church or taught by someone high up. However, he is quite right to object that this cartoon is trying to pass off these abandoned beliefs as what current Mormons believe. I said previously that the cartoon is disingenuous and misleading, and I stand by that.
Most of emarkp’s comments are nit-picks, but a couple are factually false. Adam-God was indeed taught by Brigham Young, early church leaders did imply that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, and dark-skinned Lamanites did kill off the righteous white-skinned Nephites. Hell, the whole moral of the Book of Mormon is that God will change your skin color depending on how righteous you are. No points awarded for guessing which way gets more melanin in your skin.
But he is right that the clip is like a negative political ad. They’ll dredge up every embarrassing thing you said and string it all together with no context.
The film is a reasonably accurate portrayal of Brigham Young’s teachings. And he’s not just some obscure figure in Mormonism - he’s a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator who claimed that every word he preached and published was scripture. Most (perhaps all) of emarkp’s points were preached and published as scripture (but not officially canonized in chapter:verse format, if that makes sense) by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the direction of Brigham Young.
But Mormonism today is not the same as Mormonism in the 1800s. For the last 100+ years, the God of Brigham has been suppressed to the point that if you were to pick a bunch of quotes by Brigham and show them to a random Mormon, she’d assume they were the words of a schitzophrenic on the sidewalk without the slightest understanding of the nature of God. Brigham is still listed as one of the prophets and is credited with managing the exodus from Illinois to Utah, but Mormons are discouraged from reading his words in their original context. As I’ve mentioned here before, the introduction of the 1990’s lesson manual “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young” explicitly instructs teachers and students to stay away from actual source material.
So emarkp’s analysis is closer to a modern Mormon Sunday School manual, Ed Decker’s sensationalism is closer to early Mormon prophetic utterances, and common Mormon folklore and belief lies somewhere in between.
I’m not going to go through emarkp posted point by point. But I just want to go through one to point out what Erdosain is saying. And highlight that while yes, The God Makers twists things to paint LDS theology in as negative a light as possible, the LDS also try and whitewash their own theology as much as they can.
Now that’s not quite true.
no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent.
- Brigham Young (2nd president of the church), Journal of Discourses, 7:288-89
Evidently Joseph Smith will have veto power over everyone who lived the “this dispensation,” which includes everything since about a hundred years after the crucifixion.
When we reflect upon the statement of creatures [human beings] being judged without law [Romans 2:12-16], the question arises as to who are to be their judges. We may here state that Christ is called the judge of the quick and the dead, the judge of all the earth. We further read that the Twelve Apostles who ministered in Jerusalem “shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28.)
[snip a huge section about who will judge who]
…the First Presidency and Twelve who have officiated in our age, should operate in regard to mankind in this dispensation, and also in regard to all matters connected with them, whether they relate to the past, present, or future, as the aforementioned have done in regard to their several peoples. - John Taylor (3rd president of the church), The Mediation and Atonement of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Company, 1882), pp. 155-57
So Jesus is the primary judge, but he will assistant judges. And Joseph Smith as a member of the First Presidency is included in those judges.
I’m sure I could find more quotes but the basic point is made. After two Prophets have opined on it it can’t quite be called a folk doctrine anymore. Sure The God Makers overemphasized his role, but emarkp is denying the role entirely. And I could probably do the same thing for at least half the points emarkp addresses.
Hmmm…so what’s your position regarding who will judge us?