I am quite willing to note that many adults whine and stamp their feet and I have made no effort to characterize anyone as a baby.
On the other hand, the reasons that I established for keeping the various threads separate have not been met with any logical claims as to why I should permit this thread to be hijacked, but simply with repeated claims that “it’s not fair.” That strikes me as whining.
I am not aiming for imaginative insult; I am aiming for consistent response.
I’m sure that most of the posters on this board have already seen this cartoon on youtube.
Although this short was produced by the publishers of the book and movie The God Makers, which is generally considered to be a anti-mormon piece, it is consistent with what I was taught as a young mormon in the 1970s.
The only incosistencies I can readily identify are:
Joseph Smith being a direct descendant of Jesus Christ
I was taught that he was the first prophet of the last dispensation and a direct mouthpiece for God.
Jesus having 3 wives: Mary, Martha & Mary Magdeline.
I was taught that Mary Magdeline was the wife of Jesus, and possibly Martha also.
So, is the Mormon Church still teaching that:
God the Father, whose name is Elohim, was once a human being, who, through strict obedience to Eternal Laws, became a God? That our goal is to become as God the Father now is: perfect, exhalted, omnipotent, omniscient; in short, a God?
Elohim has multiple wives and they created our spirit bodies through a union analogous to sexual intercourse?
The Earth that we live on was created by God the father and Jesus Christ, from pieces of other earths. Our earth was created specifically for human use, that we might experience physical bodies and stewardship of a planet.
The Plan of Salvation: that Jesus be sacrificed for our sins, was originally opposed by Lucifer, a spirit second only to Jesus. Lucifer argued that he should take our will for us to insure that we all would live perfect lives and thus become Gods. He convinced 1/3 of the heavenly host (that’s us, all the people who ever lived on earth) to oppose the Plan of Salvation. They were defeated and cast down to earth to live without bodies. They are now the demons who temp us.
Black people are born black because in the pre-mortal existence they refused to take sides in the War in Heaven. The more vaiantly one fought in the service if Jesus & Heavenly Father, the lighter one’s skin is in life. Thos born white to mormon families in utah were the most valiant fighters in the War in Heaven.
6.Jesus is actually Jehova, the God of the Old Testament.
So, can **dangermom[\b] or any other active mormons on board tell me if the Church is still teaching these basic tenets of it’s faith, or has that changed since the 70s?
I’ve got a new couple of questions; If i’ve understood correctly, Mormons see all people as being on the same “level” as Jesus (though he is now in a divine/perfect status, people who choose to will become like him after death). I also get that the requirement for a sacrifice in a world where people had free will meant that it would be planned out beforehand. Does that he was born of only Mary (and not Joseph) explain his differences while on Earth, and to what extent was he different before his resurrection?
Second question; on death, people choose what happens to them. Since they can choose to become akin to Jesus, does this mean that Jesus himself was not the “first” divine spirit? Why was he selected as the one who would be sacrificed?
Third one (sorry about all this!); God may at one point have been a non-God, and if he wasn’t there is always the possibility that we can become God-like beings. If this is the case, what stops God from helping his pre-God form in the past from attaining Godhood? Could he go back into his past and give his prior form advice?
There’s no time travel in mormonism. I guess you could say that time trumps godhood.
Though I haven’t been an active member since 1982, according to what I was taught in the 70s, Jesus (and to a lesser extent Lucifer) was a special spirit, even in the pre-existance. As the first-born, he was dad’s favorite in a lot of ways. He got to go to work with dad and help him create the earth, and he got to impersonate/stand in for dad as the god of the Old Testament.
Peter Morris made extraordinary belief claims and started a thread saying you could ask him questions, but you could not argue against his beliefs or criticize them, or else he would ignore you.
Result: He was metaphorically ran out of town on a rail and his thread was eventually locked.
dangermom made extraordinary belief claims and started a thread saying you could ask her questions, but you could not argue against her beliefs or criticize them, or else she would ignore you.
Result: She is held on a pedestal, her requests are honored, and she is endorsed and defended by a moderator.
Now is this or is this not because dangermom’s extraordinary claims are shared by more people than Peter Morris’s? Is that a noble reason to show her more reverence, even though her claims are more extraordinary?
Cisco, you’re really stretching, here.
As noted, you can, indeed, challenge dangermom on any of her theological claims. You keep wanting to mix up everything about the LDS and claiming it is all fair game. Ancient submarines and super special reading glasses are simply not part of LDS theology. They are part of the backstory mythology, but they are not the actual theology of the church.
Not to get sidetracked too much but here’s my 2 cents on this.
You are presenting the HG as if it is a separate entity from us that tells us nifty secrets and gives good advise. IMHO the HG is our living connection to God and each other. Listening to it’s guidance is perhaps a misleading metaphor that supports the separate entity concept. I see it more as communing with our own higher selves. Something that has always been there for us and is a part of every person.
So, while we can and do choose to not tune in our choices have consequences. Eventually those consequences lead us to that same choice which is essentially the only choice we have to make. To seek and become aware of our higher selves, or not. To act upon that awareness and surrender our previous misconceptions. Only my perspective.
In mormon theology (as it was taught in the 70s), the HG is a seperate entity. He’s a spirit child of God (Elohim), jut like all of us. The difference is that for some reason he agreed not to get a body yet. I don’t remember, but maybe he’ll be the last one to do so.
He can communicate to us through spiritual means, giving us “a burning in the bosom” to answer in the affirmative or “a stupor of thought” to answer in the negative.
I’ll be more than glad to answer questions about Mormon theology. Bear in mind that as an ex-mormon, currently soft atheist/hard agnostic I’m definitely not a believer and my answers will be dated and might not reflect the current cannon.
I thought this was an LSD theology thread. 
As BMax pointed out, cosmosdan, I was deliberately approaching the issue from an LDS theological standpoint. I wasn’t meaning to cast aspersions on the HG as an entity in all religions, but a particular problem I saw in the LDS view/use of it. I myself don’t believe in the HG at all, of course. 
noted
I’ve been out with my lady and it looks like I won’t have much time to post over the next couple days. Last time I got involved in one of these “ask the mormon” threads, I stated their theology in less than reverent tones and was accused by the faithful of spreading “folk doctrine”.
I’m afraid you’re going to need to be more clear if I’m to understand your question. What you quoted is NOT what I said was the belief of the LDS religion; it is an explanation of how one could rationalize that aspect of the belief system if one chose to do so.
The full context of what I said is this:
I think it’s pretty obvious that in the first paragraph I am attempting to explain, in easy, no-nonsense terms, what the LDS church teaches (in regards to ordinances for the dead). Certainly, there is a lot of depth there that is glossed over by my explanation, but the gist of it is accurate.
And finally, the context here would help explain things. The original answer (from myself) was in response to a question asking about whether the ordinances for the dead were ethical (I’m simplifying, here, but if you want clarification, go look at the post you quoted.).
I was active in the Mormon church from the mid-80’s through roughly 1996 - call it ten years, roughly. This is not what I was taught at any stage of the game, from the child-oriented classroom stuff to speeches from the podium through the one-on-one conferences and discussions leading up to holding the priesthood. A prophet, yes; direct mouthpiece for God? Uh, not so much. Guided by God, yes.
Never heard that one from within the church, seen it many many times from anti-Mormon groups.
Elohim is a name for God used by Mormons (though not so much, nowadays), true enough. The goal is to live one’s life as best as possible, and to (eventually) become like God, also true. I’m not so sure about the Strict Obedience part, however, and I’m at a loss as to what Eternal Laws you refer to. Forgiveness is a very big part of Mormon theology, though it bears repeating that forgiveness isn’t free - you have to demonstrate that you understand and regret your mistake.
Elohim is a Hebraic word, and is not limited to Mormonism, I might point out. It’s been in use for a long time to express aspects of divinity. A quick Google search will turn up multiple cites for this, if you’re interested.
Huh. Sounds like someone cross-indexed religion with Penthouse Letters.
(No, I was not taught this one, either. At least this one is new to me.)
Except for the pieces of other earths part, yup. According to Mormon theology, we are all a part of God’s plan, and chose to participate in it before coming to earth. There were plenty of souls who chose to stay with God and who did not come to earth, for that matter.
blinkblink Oookaaay… until about halfway through, I was nodding and saying, “Yep.” Then we got to the sent down to earth without bodies part and I lost ya.
I was never taught that they are ‘demons who tempt us’. In fact, demons (as actual beings, rather than, say, internal impulses that are hard to control) are not something that Mormons recognize as having validity, as far as I know.
Oh lord (heh). I don’t know where you got your religious instruction in the Mormon church, but this is definitely NOT doctrine.
Either that, or, I suppose, the five churches I attended (we moved a lot) were all much more modern-minded than the norm.
Never heard that one either.
A LOT about the LDS church has changed since the 70’s. Since I wasn’t a member back then, I can’t speak to what the beliefs were then, or what was taught. What is taught NOW, though (as of when I left the church, though I keep somewhat up-to-date via relatives and friends) is nothing like what you claim you were taught.
On the LDS position on blacks, please remember that it was only in 1978 that the church decided they were eligible for the priesthood. To us skeptics, this was a transparently convenient revelation to preserve the church’s tax exempt status. In any event, though, IMHO, it largely explains the difference between what BMax and Sofaspud were taught. For an explication of the current LDS position on the issue, see here.
‘Explication’, eh? :dubious:
Anyway. Your point is apt. There have been, and probably will continue to be, many changes to the belief structure of the LDS religion. It is a remarkably mutable religion, and I think that is why it is so successful despite the fallacies inherent in its mythos.
As for the site, it is a pretty good resource, certainly worth reviewing. It answers a lot of the questions already put forth in this thread.
Sorry I lost ya there, I didn’t make that perfectly clear. The Heavenly Host was Everyone who will ever live on this earth, plus maybe a few other planets. The 1/3 who were cast down to this earth without bodies and have become demons are the 1/3 of the heavenly host who chose to follow Lucifer. Their punishment is to wander the earth in spirit form without a physical body until the second coming of Christ, when they will be bound, along with Satan, formerly known as Lucifer.
I got it from published Mormon Doctrine.
And addresses given by Apostles at Brigham Young University
So, yeah, at one time it was official church doctrine, Okaaaay?
As noted above, I was born into the faith, coming from pioneer stock on both side. (Who unfortunately didn’t invest in Pioneer or other audio companies :mad: 
). My family was extremely active and Mormonism itself; along with the BoM; Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other various prophets; the teachings and the mysteries were often discussed or taught from my earliest childhood.
It seems that Mormonism has radically changed from the “old” religion, taught through at least the 70s and early 80s and the “current” Mormon teachings. I would guess that many people who joined in the 80s, 90s and 00s, would fill out doctrinal questionnaires much differently than those of us who grew up or attended in the 60s or 70s. It’s possible, too, that those of us from Zion, would have a different perspective than those from outside of the Mormon Corridor (Southern Idaho, Utah, Arizona, where the Mormon church was the predominant religion.)
This was stressed that the prophet was the direct mouthpiece for god. Numerous apostles and prophets taught this.
I wasn’t taught this specifically. Early apostles, taught that Jesus was polygamous, but I can’t remember ever being specifically taught it.
Question asked but not answered. BMax is asking if the principle of eternal progression is still part of the Mormon creed. This [del]is[/del] was a fundamental doctrine, and one which set Mormonism apart from all other major Christian sects. It’s fascinating to see the LDS Church seemly to publicly back away from this belief. As can been seen in Dangermoms’ posts, there appear to be members who are willing to abandon this. I’ll join BMax in the question if this is something which is simple not taught anymore.
Yep, taught that, although we weren’t allowed to cross-index our believes with Penthouse.
That’s new. No want wanted to stay with God in the older version.
Wow. That’s changed in the new Mormonism, if in fact that is no longer taught. Still, I would have to really wonder about that not being taught, since it’s given specifically in too many scriptural references, not only in the Bible, but also in the BoM and the PoGP.
No, it’s just that after the doctrinal change to allow blacks to hold the priesthood, which happened when I was in high school and very much remember the event, this doctrine was quietly dropped. However, it was most definitely taught from the highest pulpits. I would recommend reading Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, if there are any questions concerning this.
'Tis, or at least was, doctrine.
If there are questions to Bmax’s assertions, I would suggest reading books written in the 50s and 60s by the General Authorities (the prophets and apostles). Mormonism used to take greater pride in being a “particular” religion, and not being like the rest.
If you want to get really blown away, read what the early apostles and prophets wrote. You’ll find doctrine which was quickly disavowed by later leadership, including Brigham Young’s teachings that God the Father came down as Adam.
There is (or, at least was) no doctrinal basis for allowing heirs to make decisions for the decided, for spiritual matters. There is a world of difference between the living deciding temporal matters, which the dead would or could no longer control, and the living making decisions which would be eternally binding on the part of the dead. This is in direct violation of the doctrine of free will, in which all souls make their own choices. The Mormon church never made this justification while I was a member, and it would violate too many of the fundamental concepts. Indeed, the War in Heaven, in which Satan and his third, where kicked out over this very question. Satan had proposed forcing everyone to be good, and Christ proposed giving each person their own choices.
Perhaps again, they are of less importance now, but the mythology and theology of the church were too tightly intertwined when I was growing up. As noted in the concurrent thread, many other Christian sects do not claim the literalness of the myths, but Mormonism used to while I was growing up, and does not disavow it yet.
LDS teaching (actual teaching from my seminary days): God actively guides the prophets and this can be seen by his leading the Brother of Jared when they built the closed barges.
One of the reasons I and many others gave up Mormonism and its theology is the inability to accept any longer the mythology.
As BMax explains, with the addition that Elohim physically had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.
I want to note that, while the Elohim=Father & Jehovah=Son in unique to the LDS faith, that Trinitarian Christianity is perfectly comfortable with identifying the OT Deity Who appeared & spoke to the Patriarchs & Prophets of the OT, and Who calls Himself YHVH, with the Diving Son/The Logos/the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.
Now a Q to dangermom about the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Trinity, and our Heavenly Mother. Christian theologians in Catholic, Protestant & Eastern Orthodox circles have all noticed a sort of Maternal aspect of the Holy Spirit’s
work with us- teaching, nurturing, comforting, etc. Have you ever heard any speculation, either formally or informally, about The Mother being somehow also the Holy Spirit?
I’ve never heard the “Heavenly Mother = Holy Ghost” somehow bit. For one thing, one would presume Elohim’s wife to have a physical body. As noted above, the Holy Ghost has a body of spirit.