Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Gadianton]

Huck’s response is interesting because he seems to be describing a sense of equality by downplaying sacrifice and describing other traits of godhood, like power or knowledge.

Huck is right about what Mormons explicitly teach about God. I've never said otherwise. I'm explaining what I believe their mythology has worked out unconsciously.

I can't tell you how many times I heard members say things like "truth is truth", what God teaches and what science finds in the lab are the same thing. When we go to the celestial kingdom it's going to be like a big university where we learn tons of science so that we can carry on the work of creation.

But if that were all good enough, then why is the idea so seductive that God the Father was a savior upon his world? Why would Joseph Smith insist on it? Why does this seem to make "total sense" to Mormons when they learn of it, usually in whispers since as I've said more than once, this isn't an explicit teaching. Yet, it's something Mormons are generally familiar with and seem to believe and pass around in whispers with the understanding that it's one of the most sacred and deep truths that there is.

I mean, the probability that God was also the savior of his world is infinitesimal since his father also has infinite offspring. But there you have it, and good luck explaining that it's just a meaningless freak occurrence that has nothing to do with the Father's greatness.

[Limnor]

. The second half of my comment was coming from a non Mormon point of view though it might be seen as sharing some angle. Perhaps Gadianton 's view comes from a different stand of Mormon speculation than I encountered. Perhaps he has a source but the idea of divinity requiring experience of being an atoning sacrifice is outside my Mormon learning. I think he trying to fallow out a line of logical extension. I keep pointing out greatest is the fundamental power of all being not a measured accomplishment. I say that first from a traditional Christian view noting that LDS thinking does not really escape that .it

I’d probably call the sacrificial act the demonstration of God’s greatness.

My external understanding of Mormon theology is that Jesus did everything He saw His father do, so the naturally extension of that would be to offer Himself up as a sacrifice like His father did before Him.

[Limnor]

But if that were all good enough, then why is the idea so seductive that God the Father was a savior upon his world? Why would Joseph Smith insist on it? Why does this seem to make "total sense" to Mormons when they learn of it, usually in whispers since as I've said more than once, this isn't an explicit teaching. Yet, it's something Mormons are generally familiar with and seem to believe and pass around in whispers with the understanding that it's one of the most sacred and deep truths that there is.

I mean, the probability that God was also the savior of his world is infinitesimal since his father also has infinite offspring. But there you have it, and good luck explaining that it's just a meaningless freak occurrence that has nothing to do with the Father's greatness.

I’d think the idea would follow naturally, considering the explanation that Jesus was doing what His father before Him had done.