DiscussMormonism.com

Did I get Mormonism right in my illustration? It was by far the most complex of the ideas that I tried to simplify.

Brilliant, Tim!

You clearly have a bright future here on MormonDiscussions.com.

Did I get Mormonism right in my illustration? It was by far the most complex of the ideas that I tried to simplify.

I like it in general. As far as I can tell, I'm only one of few Mormons who contemplates the (or a) Universe bringing about the Gods. I don't think most of them would necessarily agree that the Universe is prior to exalted ancestors though imho, that is the implication of our doctrine.

Perhaps change your arrows to connect Jehovah God with the spirit body who is still a God nonetheless and given them the same name. Mormons also don't use the term "Jehovah God" very often but perhaps it is okay if you are trying to communicate. You could use Jesus or Jehovah instead.

The plural marriage implication is technically correct but gives off the wrong impression.

Hey Tim, could you do Hinduism and include Ganesha?

How about one with Xenu, atomic bombs and volcanoes?

I think it’s great as it is. Love the iguanas.

Hey Tim, could you do Hinduism and include Ganesha?

How about one with Xenu, atomic bombs and volcanoes?

I second the motion!

Add the Cthulhu mythos.

Pure WIN

bcspace wrote:I like it in general. As far as I can tell, I'm only one of few Mormons who contemplates the (or a) Universe bringing about the Gods. I don't think most of them would necessarily agree that the Universe is prior to exalted ancestors though imho, that is the implication of our doctrine.

Perhaps change your arrows to connect Jehovah God with the spirit body who is still a God nonetheless and given them the same name. Mormons also don't use the term "Jehovah God" very often but perhaps it is okay if you are trying to communicate. You could use Jesus or Jehovah instead.

The plural marriage implication is technically correct but gives off the wrong impression.

It's not just the universe, it's the capital "U" universe. All matter, priesthood and morality pre-existed and Heavenly Father is in the process of learning and growing in knowledge of the Universe that existed before he was a god.

Yes, I know that Mormons don't use the term Jehovah God, but I wanted to make sure to communicate that Jesus was both God and using the name Jehovah, and not at all in exclusion of one another. I think what's interesting about Jesus and the Holy Ghost is that they both somehow were able to avoid the "plan of salvation" by becoming fully God without a probationary period and without a body.

How is my plural marriage depiction giving the wrong impression? I don't think it's at all "merely" technically correct. It's correct, full stop.

Tim wrote:Yes, I know that Mormons don't use the term Jehovah God, but I wanted to make sure to communicate that Jesus was both God and using the name Jehovah, and not at all in exclusion of one another. I think what's interesting about Jesus and the Holy Ghost is that they both somehow were able to avoid the "plan of salvation" by becoming fully God without a probationary period and without a body.

because in your research you missed the word "personage"?

How is my plural marriage depiction giving the wrong impression? I don't think it's at all "merely" technically correct. It's correct, full stop.

not really, the "don't forget me" is a mis-characterization.

Atheism graphic is a stretch, it fails to reflect the necessary self-centered interest an atheist must resign to.

All in all, it seems to be a bit cliché', yet another regurgitation of past reduction-isms. Impressive would have been without any text, but your points seem to rely on text. Not sure any of them make for a good t-shirt, but who knows?

subgenius wrote:
Atheism graphic is a stretch, it fails to reflect the necessary self-centered interest an atheist must resign to.

Mormons believe they are mini gods, destined to be Great Big Mighty Gods, but atheists are self-centered. Interesting.