LDS theology questions thread

[tomndebb]

(And just to be clear, I am not declaring hard questions off limits. Just keep them theological.

For example if (hypothetically), a Gospel quotes Jesus as saying that situation A is required to attain heaven and a passage in the BoM or the Pearl of Great Price or something directly contradicts that Gospel statement, that is clearly on the table for discussion. I am only declaring that worrying over the current locations of golden tablets or magical reading devices or the explanation of 2600 year old submarines is not relevant.)

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

(And just to be clear, I am not declaring hard questions off limits. Just keep them theological.

For example if (hypothetically), a Gospel quotes Jesus as saying that situation A is required to attain heaven and a passage in the BoM or the Pearl of Great Price or something directly contradicts that Gospel statement, that is clearly on the table for discussion. I am only declaring that worrying over the current locations of golden tablets or magical reading devices or the explanation of 2600 year old submarines is not relevant.)

There is an odd double standard at work here. Take this hypothetical situation:

Dangermom says her theological beliefs are founded on the Book of Mormon, which is a testament of Ancient America detailing the arrival in the New World of Hebrews spweaking reformed Egyptian who later became Christians for 400 years. She is apparently discussing theology.

I ask why there is not an iota of evidence from archeology for this. I am not discussing theology.

[Polycarp]

Valteron: IMO you can find erroneous “facts” in almost anyone’s holy book(s). I do not believe the ancient Indo-Aryans used advanced energy weapons to conquer the Dravidians – but you will assuredly find what sounds much like lasers and death rays in the Hindu scriptures. A few of the “facts” about Jesus and Mary in the Koran fly in the face, not only of the New Testament, but of the legitimate unquestioned history of the time. There are more than a few beliefs of Orthodox Jews regarding Torah and Tanakh that are quite subject to call-out on the basis of historical accuracy, paleographic research, and so on. Etc. These erroneous data do not have a great deal to do with the belief structure of the religions that make use of those books.

The subject of this thread is, “What is it that Mormons actually believe?” done in Q&A format. Whether we all live in a Jaredite submarine, or Nephite cities should be dug up by archaeologists, or the debatable provenance of the writings of Joseph Smith Jr., are all legitimate questions that do not belong here. Any more than ranting about the absence of Nephite cities belongs in “Should the Senate be abolished?”

I agree with you that the alleged history and provenance of the Book of Mormon shows every evidence of being in much the same category as organic bovine-byproduct fertilizer. But it is not relevant to what it is that Mormons believe, which is the subject and intent of this thread.

If people have problems with defining “belief” as “understanding of the nature of God and His messengers, and of our relationship to Him,” as opposed to “opinions contrary to best evidence regarding miscellaneous apparent textual errors in ancient (or not-so-ancient) manuscripts,” that is grist for yet a third thread. It’s one that’s annoyed me for many years – I do not give a sweet flying fuck what some anonymous chronicler had to say about a bald prophet, 42 mouthy kids, and two female bears (and I read Stranger too, probably well before 3/4 of the membership was born). It is simply not relevant to the questions pertinent to my faith in God.

[Cisco]

@Polycarp

Valteron: IMO you can find erroneous “facts” in almost anyone’s holy book(s).

Which is exactly why we should not take seriously or dignify with questions the people who insist that these books are FACT - FULL STOP.

[Cisco]

@Polycarp

I do not give a sweet flying fuck what some anonymous chronicler had to say about a bald prophet, 42 mouthy kids, and two female bears (and I read Stranger too, probably well before 3/4 of the membership was born). It is simply not relevant to the questions pertinent to my faith in God.

By the way, I just re-read Valteron’s post in light of this and it occured to me that he is not asking about someone’s haircut, or a misspelling, or whether they maybe got Pi wrong. What he’s asking about is a PRETTY BIG FREAKIN’ CORNERSTONE of the Mormon faith.

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

I see no reason to get bent out of shape about an informative thread when we already have a thread available (and not even in the Pit) to heap all the disbelief one chooses onto the LDS.

[ /Moderating ]

I think the above quote by Tomndeb illustrates the double standard being applied here more eloquently than I could.

This thread, to which dangermom retreated, is a place where she can state what she believes without having to justify it with hard scientific facts. This is an “informative” thread donc’ha know! The other thread started by AS recently, about Mormons, is by implication a non-informative thread in which we slobbering, prejudiced non-believers can “heap all the disblief (we choose) onto the LDS.” :dubious:

BTW, is dangermom willing to go back to the other thread and debate the scientific/archeological arguments that shoot down her theological beliefs?

Debating theology is a ridiculous and bootless excercise because all competing theological views are fairy tales that pride themselves in being based on faith, which means that they operate independently of reason, common sense and evidence, including archeological evidence. Theological debates are like two clouds in conflict. All you get is one nebulous mess.

But just to keep Tomndeb happy, I will hereby comply and participate in a theological debate on this thread. Don’t say I am not a nice guy, Tom!

However, since I am also a prophet (I found some plates in the ground yesterday, written in reformed Bbylonian, which I translated with magical devices. Sorry I can’t show them to you… the angel took them back)

I will therefore give my THEOLOGICAL question, but I will also predict the answer that dangermom will give.

Valteron: Why are there no references in the Bible to the New World and Christ’s appearance in it?

Answer I expect to receive from dangermom: Oh but there is! See John 10:16: “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one sheppard.”

In 3, Nephi, Chapter 15, verses 16 and 17: “This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them: That other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one sheppard.”

Valteron: So that one reference (as well as a vague reference about a branch shall grow forth out of the stem of Jesse in the Old Testament) are your poof. Jesus said nothing more?

Answer I expect to receive from dangermom: But in the BofM at 3, Nephi, Chapter 15, verse 18, Jesus says to the Nephites “And now because of stiff-neckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them.”

Valteron : Madam, are you seriously telling me that if the Jews listening to Jesus in the Gospel of John had been less stiff-necked and unbelieving, they would have said: “Who are these other sheep, Jesus?” And Jesus would have answered: “Way far across the Ocean Sea beyond the pillars of Hercules lies vast lands as big as Africa and Europe that will someday called America. Europeans will not start to settle thre until about 1500 years from now, but I will go there after I am crucified and convert them to Christianity.”

Is it not more likel that Jesus meant that he would be preaching to other crowds in Judea? Or even that he meant that his message would have been broughtto the gentiles?

Besides, you are quoting the BofM to prove that the BofM is right. Does this not strike you as circular reasoning?

Now, I could go on like this for about 2 hours, but you get the idea. Theological debate is a clash of fairy tales. It is like shadow-boxing with smoke.

It is only when believers are confronted with scientific facts, such as the complete and utter lack of even a shred of evidence that the Christian/Nephite civilization existed in the Americas, or the utter impossibility of concentrating all land animals on a large ship, that they shy away and tell you that their faith is not based on scientific/archeological evidence. Here we are, safe in cloud-cuckoo land, and we are not leaving it!

[dangermom]

Good morning! I’m going to tackle Polycarp’s question on the nature of the Godhead in LDS theology. I hope I can do a reasonable job.

A quick list of the differences–LDS believe that:

The members of the Godhead are not one substance, but three people united in purpose. We do not accept the Creeds or Councils, or any extra-Biblical definitions of the Godhead. We are not Trinitarians.

God the Father and Jesus Christ have physical bodies, though of course not mortal ones; they have glorified, immortal bodies.

On to particulars:

God the Father is the ruler of the universe. Through his son, Jesus Christ, he created the heavens and the earth, organizing chaotic matter into the sun, earth, and so on. He is the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver whom we worship. He created our spirits, though some part of us is uncreated and eternal. Our object is to come to know him and to go back to live with him someday, and his work is to help us progress as far as we desire in order to become as much like him as possible (Moses 1:39 “Behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” [Eternal life has the specific meaning of living in the Celestial Kingdom]). In order to accomplish this, God presented to us his plan for our salvation, in which we would take on mortal bodies, experience physical life, and need a Savior. Jesus volunteered for that job. We accepted this plan; those who chose not to stayed as spirits.

Jesus, the son of God, was the first and foremost of us when we were spirits. Thus we call him our Elder Brother as well. He offered to help us get back to our Heavenly Father by taking our sins upon him. Before he lived on earth, he sometimes gave knowledge to earthly people through revelation. Then he was born on earth, taught the gospel and organized his church, and was crucified for the sins of the world. He was resurrected in a perfect, immortal body and ascended into heaven, and he also visited his “other sheep, not of this fold” by appearing to the Nephites on the American continent and establishing his church there in the same form. He is the head of his church on earth. Christ and the Atonement are the cornerstone of LDS belief.

The Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead, has a spirit body, but not a physical one. He can be in only one place at a time, but his influence is everywhere at once. He is the revealer and testifier of truth, and is God’s messenger. All people can and do feel the influence of the Holy Ghost if they will, but we can also receive the “gift of the Holy Ghost” at baptism, when we gain the privilege of his constant companionship. When we feel a spiritual confirmation of truth, we are feeling his influence.
For a more detailed but basic picture of these ideas, you may wish to read the first several chapters of Gospel Principles, a sort of LDS primer for adults.

Is there anything I’ve left out or points to be clarified?

[Valteron]

@dangermom

God the Father and Jesus Christ have physical bodies, though of course not mortal ones; they have glorified, immortal bodies.

I have a question: What colour is the skin on the physical bodies of God the Father and Jesus Christ?

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

I think the above quote by Tomndeb illustrates the double standard being applied here more eloquently than I could.

This thread, to which dangermom retreated, is a place where she can state what she believes without having to justify it with hard scientific facts. This is an “informative” thread donc’ha know! The other thread started by AS recently, about Mormons, is by implication a non-informative thread in which we slobbering, prejudiced non-believers can "heap all the disblief (we choose) onto the LDS."

BTW, is dangermom willing to go back to the other thread and debate the scientific/archeological arguments that shoot down her theological beliefs?

Debating theology is a ridiculous and bootless excercise because all competing theological views are fairy tales that pride themselves in being based on faith, which means that they operate independently of reason, common sense and evidence, including archeological evidence. Theological debates are like two clouds in conflict. All you get is one nebulous mess.

The bolded statement is simply your deliberate and innacurate inference. I am sure that the other thread is quite informative and contains many facts. On the other hand, standing around hurling brickbats and screaming “There ain’t no Nephites!” allows people to shut down every discussion of LDS belief–as has happened in every previous thread. Are you afraid to discover what the CoJCoLDS actually teaches at this time? Since the SDMB is supposed to be “fighting ignornace,” what is it about fighting your ignoranace of their beliefs that bothers you?

For someone who believes that “Debating theology is a ridiculous and bootless excercise” you certainly seem to show up in a lot of threads where theology is being debated. (Although, I admit that your general style of posting is consistent, in that you generally try to destroy the discussion by simply mocking the belief or the believers.)

I would be willing to bet that every single member of this board who is not an active participant in the LDS finds the tales of the plates and the tales of the appearance of Jesus in the Americas and the story of the Atlantic crossing and dozens of other aspects of the LDS mythology to be silly. I doubt that one poster in a thousand would give any of them any credence. So what? Every time the topic comes up, so many posters are so eager to trash the group on those grounds that no one actually gets to discover what people inside the group actually believe. If this thread offends your sense of entitlement to engage in myth-busting, then don’t read this thread. As noted, several times, you have another active thread in which you can bring up all the odd and unbeleivable aspects regarding the founding of the LDS. (You can also go back to numerous previous threads where any genuine discussion was derailed by similar actions in order to dig up even more contradictory data regarding Smith or the LDS.)

[dangermom]

Thanks, Tom, for working so hard to keep this thread civil and on-topic.

The reason that I am not participating on the other thread, or in any other screaming matches, is that no one is particularly interested in actually discussing the issues or listening to anything I have to say. Screaming and shouting is not all that interesting to me; I’ve had plenty, and I’ve heard all the objections. You’re not telling me anything new, I promise.

And I think I’ve mentioned that I’m on a family visit and don’t have much time to address the serious questions I’ve been asked. If someone wanted to actually engage in a discussion about archaeology, I would have to put it off to another time anyway, because it’s two days before Christmas and my in-laws will be here in a little while (we are at my BIL’s house). And it’s been awhile since I’ve read up on the latest news; my books are at home, where I am not. Not that anyone wants to hear about them anyhow.

So; I’m more than happy to try to help people understand LDS theological thought. I’m not interested in screaming or pile-ons today. You could always go back and look up my posts from years past or search up some Mormon threads; we’ve covered it before, at great length and tedium.

And lastly, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have no race or color that I know of. As glorified beings, they are a bit different than that. Christ was, of course, Jewish in mortal life, and presumably looked it.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’ve got a question, which I think is reasonable, but if it’s offensive feel free to ignore it.

With the exaltation thing; as I understand it, there’s the possibility that all of us could at some point become like God (though this isn’t the emphasis now). Assuming that it was possible, would we (as God-like beings) be able to create beings who are like us now? And would we have the same problems with creating bodies for spirits; that is, having to decide between the route that God took (free will, but a sacrifice for sin) or Lucifer’s (enforced no sinning), or are there alternate options?

[Cisco]

@dangermom

Thanks, Tom, for working so hard to keep this thread civil and on-topic.

You should thank him for keeping you immune to debate in a forum called ‘Great Debates’.

Look, I have family, friends, and co-workers who are LDS, as I’m sure many of the posters here do. If I want the happy feel-good shared delusion viewpoint I’ll ask them - or they’ll just give it to me anyway as they so often do. I come to the SDMB for critical discussions. Shutting that down is not a “Great Debate”, it’s pointless witnessing.

[tomndebb]

@Cisco

You should thank him for keeping you immune to debate in a forum called ‘Great Debates’.

Look, I have family, friends, and co-workers who are LDS, as I’m sure many of the posters here do. If I want the happy feel-good shared delusion viewpoint I’ll ask them - or they’ll just give it to me anyway as they so often do. I come to the SDMB for critical discussions. Shutting that down is not a “Great Debate”, it’s pointless witnessing.

You want some cheese with that?

Not everyone has your bountiful opportunities to discuss LDS theology without having the discussion of theology derailed by attacks on the surrounding myths or perceived practices. Why are you afraid to allow those discussions, here?

[dangermom]

@Revenant Threshold

I’ve got a question, which I think is reasonable, but if it’s offensive feel free to ignore it.

With the exaltation thing; as I understand it, there’s the possibility that all of us could at some point become like God (though this isn’t the emphasis now). Assuming that it was possible, would we (as God-like beings) be able to create beings who are like us now? And would we have the same problems with creating bodies for spirits; that is, having to decide between the route that God took (free will, but a sacrifice for sin) or Lucifer’s (enforced no sinning), or are there alternate options?

Yes. I think you are pretty much correct in your reasoning. I do not know of any other options besides the two you list, but I’m not sure that the second option is a real one anyway. If the entire point of life is to grow up, gain experience, and become like God, then free will is the only way that I know of to do that. As far as I have ever been able to figure out, agency (as we call free will) is God’s first rule that he will not break; he will plead, he will help, but he will not force. We have to choose whether or not we want to be with him. And when we do, he lets us take the road we’ve chosen.

The other option produces nothing but automatons who are not good or evil. If you are forced to be good, then you aren’t really good at all; the word loses all meaning. And automatons don’t really learn or progress.

[Cisco]

@tomndebb

Why are you afraid to allow those discussions, here?

Why is dangermom afraid to answer the obvious questions that arise when she makes such extraordinary claims? Why was Peter Morris’s thread allowed to be derailed and then locked, while this one is being treated with such reverence?

[Musicat]

@dangermom

At any rate, I seriously doubt that any archaological evidence, however amazing, would actually convince anyone of anything important. The important thing about the BoM is that it is a life-changing text, which tells us about God’s plan for us, how we can live according to his word, and how we can be saved.

tomndebb, I was going to ask a question relating to the golden plates, but I see by your several posts that it is off-limits. However, theology questions are not.

So maybe my question is only half OK. I’ll try it anyway – dangermom, I see a theological problem here. On the one hand, you believe the docs are “God’s plan”, yet you don’t believe the source of these docs is relevant or provable. Doesn’t that mean your theological base is pretty shaky?

Would you unquestioningly believe something written down by “Joe”?

Would you believe something written down by “Joe” if he wrote, “God said this…”?

Many books have been written in the last 200 years. How does this one stand out so much as to be accepted as the voice of someone worthy of worship?

I’m trying to find out why a theological viewpoint is not critically examined before being so strongly accepted. Is it just because you are familiar with it? Grew up with it? Because it makes sense? Another reason?

To me, the source of a belief is a critical element of the belief system, whether it be the Bible, Koran, or Book of X. Surely a truly divinely inspired work has more bearing on theology than a mere collection of myths or made-up stories. Do you agree with this statement?

[Sapo]

pretty pleeeease?:

@Sapo

Since the issue was slightly referenced. How much weight does the LDS place on the acts in life vs. your acceptance of God at death?. What I mean is, some churches are very accountant styled and keep track of every deed or sin in life. Some others care very little about that and place salvation at your acceptance of God’s presence and forgiveness at the time of death. Where in that sliding scale falls mainstream LDS?

[dangermom]

I’m sorry Sapo, I missed your question!

So, to both Sapo and Musicat, I’m happy to answer them, but I have to go get some lunch for this horde just now. I’ll be back, I’m not avoiding you.

[BMax]

This has been done before

[badchad]

@tomndebb

If you wish to bash the LDS on points of history, archaeology, or whatever, you are free to use the thread to which you have already posted. If you wish to challenge the theology of the LDS, (either as “not Christian” or as internally inconsistent), feel free to engage here. However, you are not to hijack this thread with a different discussion when an existing and active thread already addresses your off-topic points.

Just to clarify, I spoke with tomndebb about this type of thing once before and he agreed that when he is telling someone not to hijack a thread, he is doing so as a regular guy and his moderator status has nothing to do with it. There is no rule against hijacking a thread, so direct disobediance should be met with zero consequence. It happens all the time. Though I personally don’t think Valteron is hijacking anything in the first place.