beastie wrote:Perhaps it's harder for born-in-the-fold LDS or exLDS to understand why this teaching is so shocking, because it's what you've known your entire life. To outsiders, it is shocking and sacrilegious. It does turn God into a kind of star trek alien, which isn't a good thing for mainstream Christian.
Mainstream Christianity beleives God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ. A read of the KFD shows Joseph Smith believed the Father was a man like Jesus, a savior. Still odd to mainstream but not outside the realm of their beliefs. Also mainstream Christianity does teach theosis. That we can share in the divine nature of Christ. Still there are differences but not as much as you would propose. Problem is most mainstream Christians don't know much about what they believe really.
beastie wrote:Perhaps it's harder for born-in-the-fold LDS or exLDS to understand why this teaching is so shocking, because it's what you've known your entire life. To outsiders, it is shocking and sacrilegious. It does turn God into a kind of star trek alien, which isn't a good thing for mainstream Christian.
Mainstream Christianity beleives God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ. A read of the KFD shows Joseph Smith believed the Father was a man like Jesus, a savior. Still odd to mainstream but not outside the realm of their beliefs. Also mainstream Christianity does teach theosis. That we can share in the divine nature of Christ. Still there are differences but not as much as you would propose. Problem is most mainstream Christians don't know much about what they believe really.
I am sorry to disagree, but although I was only a layman and not a university-trained theologian, I did have a quite sophisticated in-depth understanding of the doctrine of my own mainstream branch of Christianity. Basic to my beliefs was that God was a spirit without 'body, parts or passions'. The incarnation of this deity in one man, Jesus, was therefore a mystery, almost an offense, the huge and glorious anomaly on which the nature of creation and man's salvation turned.
The Mormon 'resolution' of this problem by saying, in effect, that God is in fact simply a glorified man with a body would have seemed to me both blasphemous and almost laughably trivial. Clearly a deity made of matter and subject to laws of nature was not the deity that made 'heaven and earth' from nothing, and is responsible for the natural and moral order, but something that would have seemed to me a primitive throw-back to ancient near eastern myth.
That's how it would have looked to me then.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I am sorry to disagree, but although I was only a layman and not a university-trained theologian, I did have a quite sophisticated in-depth understanding of the doctrine of my own mainstream branch of Christianity. Basic to my beliefs was that God was a spirit without 'body, parts or passions'. The incarnation of this deity in one man, Jesus, was therefore a mystery, almost an offense, the huge and glorious anomaly on which the nature of creation and man's salvation turned.
The Mormon 'resolution' of this problem by saying, in effect, that God is in fact simply a glorified man with a body would have seemed to me both blasphemous and almost laughably trivial. Clearly a deity made of matter and subject to laws of nature was not the deity that made 'heaven and earth' from nothing, and is responsible for the natural and moral order, but something that would have seemed to me a primitive throw-back to ancient near eastern myth.
That's how it would have looked to me then.
Ok I could clearly be wrong. Yet Jesus was God in flesh. A mystery you say? Is this because nobody can really make and common sense out of very confusing theology of Christianity. I mean read what you just wrote? And people think Mormon ideas are strange? The weirdness you describe above just has been around a lot longer so people think it is not weird when it is.
Romney will either be the best thing or the worst thing to happen to Mormonism in many years. I think it will simply open the door to expose the strange things in Moism. No one cares about the Book of Abraham but I bet they will if Mitt is president.
I am sorry to disagree, but although I was only a layman and not a university-trained theologian, I did have a quite sophisticated in-depth understanding of the doctrine of my own mainstream branch of Christianity. Basic to my beliefs was that God was a spirit without 'body, parts or passions'. The incarnation of this deity in one man, Jesus, was therefore a mystery, almost an offense, the huge and glorious anomaly on which the nature of creation and man's salvation turned.
The Mormon 'resolution' of this problem by saying, in effect, that God is in fact simply a glorified man with a body would have seemed to me both blasphemous and almost laughably trivial. Clearly a deity made of matter and subject to laws of nature was not the deity that made 'heaven and earth' from nothing, and is responsible for the natural and moral order, but something that would have seemed to me a primitive throw-back to ancient near eastern myth.
That's how it would have looked to me then.
Ok I could clearly be wrong. Yet Jesus was God in flesh. A mystery you say? Is this because nobody can really make and common sense out of very confusing theology of Christianity. I mean read what you just wrote? And people think Mormon ideas are strange? The weirdness you describe above just has been around a lot longer so people think it is not weird when it is.
You are quite correct in your underlined sentence. But I think you will find that to mainstream Christians Mormon teaching on the nature of God, once they come to realize what it is, is so alien as to be perceptibly weird, which is what matters in this context, is it not?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Jason Bourne wrote: Obama won't touch the Mormon issue one whit. His secular left surrogates might. But not Obama.
I predict this thread will end up being much said about nothing. Sure there will and has been stuff out there about all the weirdness of Mormonism. But I just don't see it being a major issue anymore. We will see.
I agree Obama won't touch the Mormon issue. But others will. It may simply be out of curiosity. Most people really don't know much about Mormonism, other than the vague ads they see on TV, and connecting it with polygamy. But they know next to nothing about its theology. Interest in Mormonism will escalate, even outside of the political games. Certainly the interest on the internet will escalate, even if mainstream media is a bit wary of highlighting it. So even if the interest is in the background, I firmly believe that discovering more about Mormon beliefs will be detrimental to Romney. He is banking on being able to excite the base in a way he has not so far, and a good deal of that base consists of conservative Christians who already are skeptical about Mormonism. Learning the basic theology of man becoming god will freak them out.
I hardly think so. I have lived my entire adult life outside of Utah and move quite comfortably in non LDS. Also you really think Romney, who never grew up in Utah, who was a leader of a major company that had non LDS owners and dealt with non LDS businesses, who was a governer and all that he is done because he cannot relate to the cultural mainstream? I disagree with this one.
Perhaps you're right, but there's something about his stiffness and formality that reminds me of Mormonism.
It also may be more a reflection on Romney's upbringing consisting of not only monetary privilege, but being a member of Mormon royalty. He's clearly not comfortable with the "little people" - and can't even imagine the little people's reactions to him - hence, his gaffes like admitting he doesn't like Nascar much but has friends who are owners.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I disagree with those that say mainstream media won't touch the stranger aspects of Mormonism. They will not bring up the stranger aspects themselves but they will look for faithful members, like Bott, whom they can quote. There are enough fundamentalist whack jobs in the Church, willing to quote past prophets, that it will be easy for the main stream media to broach such subjects with out appearing to attack the Church. I am sure if you looked hard enough, and the media will, you will find people with in the Church that still think that Adam-God is doctrine. Finding people that will teach polygamy is still doctrine will be simple, as will finding those that argue the ban is/was doctrine.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
A Romney Presidency would be a marvelous time for much needed reforms and changes within the Church to make their way forward. Do we have good men and women to meet this challenge and not drag their feet? I hope so.
this topic is one that i follow a lot and have a ton of interest in.
Mormons have a whole lot of whacky beliefs. so do christians in every denomination have whacky beliefs. Mormons are not unique owners and followers of stupid crap. i think romney would love nothing more than for the left to get bogged down in weird crap like the book of abraham or the dna of mayans or the existence of real mayan elephants. it would thrill him to know effing end to have the discussion about his religion limited to which religion is the unsilliest or bestest.
that ain't the point here. and frankly, i don't think there are any blogs, reporters or groups that are seeing the real issue with a Mormon in the white house.
the most glaring issue that i see is that romney is not a Mormon like kennedy was a catholic. romney is a priesthood holder, bishop and stake president. he is clergy. he is not someone that grew up in a religion that was just the faith of his fathers. this is not someone that just born into this. he is much more. he is a priesthood holder. he made covenants in a temple. he dragged his thumb across his throat and made symbolic gestures to filet his guts as a pledge to this church over EVERYTHING.
it doesn't matter that what the Mormons do is kooky. it matters that this guy is asking for our confidence, and vote, after effectively participating in his secret combinations. it does not matter if boyd packer is a bigot and hates smart uppity women, it matters that this idiot running for president thinks that the bigots running a church are prophets.
the population of Mormons follow the leaders of the church and cannot bring themselves to criticize those leaders. it will be known that even the liberal Mormons and those willing to question a word or two in a press release, will not tolerate ANY conversation about the integrity of the leaders of the Mormon church. any threats to that conversation will result in banning or closing of dialogue on the internet, and shunning or disowning in real life.
the questions the swinging voters will be lead to care about are not whether the book of abraham is legit or not, is that Mormons will not admit or accept that they are lied to by their leaders. the bott scenario will be replayed over and over, and it will be clear that some Mormons do not like the church's response, but it will be more obvious that there is no movement by individuals or a group to condemn the leaders. there will be a movement to condemn bott, but not the church. there will be group that condemns homophobia, but never a group to condemn the leaders that fail to honestly own their past and present behavior.
the Mormons act like sheep, and they are shameless about it. there is no amount of quack doctrine that will get enough traction to keep the attention of voters. but, when voters are faced with the possibility of having a president that endorses a multi-billion dollar institution that operates like a cult, lies to people, does not disclose finances and uses its members to front their bigotry and shameless lying - they may not appear to vote.
romney has shown no willingness to address his issues with the leaders of his church. it will be too late to do that when he is already nominated. his history has to stand for itself prior to now, and what he has done so far is to raise his right arm to the square and bow his head and say yes to people like benson, packer and countless other bigots.
the story out of idaho this week, where cook tells the kids to use their real name and fight the good fight, while he hides behind an anonymous excuse for allowing decades of hateful teachings about 'the negro' to come out of his church, is far more damning than garments and baptizing dead people. i hope the time bomb that awaits mitt is the right one - the one that prevents he, or any other cult supporter, from running this country.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)