Gaslighting Planets

[Kishkumen]

Just started to listen to the Mormonism Live episode on gaslighting, and I have gotten through the claim that Mormon leaders have been gaslighting about the doctrine concerning exaltation and "getting your own planet." I congratulate Mormonism Live for producing yet another interesting and timely episode. Now they are talking about the infamous Ronald Poelman talk, the editing of which was a big red flag for me personally.

Praise aside, I think the issue regarding the LDS Church's public treatment of teachings about exaltation is a lot more complex than Mormonism Live captures and Bill Reel in particular appreciates.

I remember the first time I watched The God Makers, an anti-Mormon film that depicted Heavenly Father as some kind of Nordic chieftain dropping by Mary's house to engage in sexual relations with her and thus conceive Jesus. On the one had, this bit of film was completely ludicrous and highly insulting. On the other hand, I think it does represent something of what anti-Mormons see in LDS doctrine, and it put into animation things that can definitely be extrapolated from past teachings of church leaders, and some present ones too.

Nevertheless, the film was rightly denounced by many Christians, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Look, when non-LDS people laugh about Mormons thinking they will become gods and receive their own planets, I think we all know that this has basis in LDS teaching past and present. At the same time, how one speaks or writes about religious doctrines makes a big difference. Exaltation does lie at the core of LDS doctrine, and it is silly to deny it. But I don't think LDS leaders are denying the doctrine of exaltation when they deny these two-dimensional caricatures. They are denying two-dimensional caricatures of what they view as sacred doctrine.

It is easy for LDS people to slip into the same two-dimensional understanding of LDS doctrine when social pressure and misunderstanding permeate the larger culture. Magic underwear, planets, and the like represent profanations of LDS practices and doctrines, not accurate portrayals of them in regular language.

There is a reason why LDS converts do not head to the temple or know about it in their first days of membership. They do not understand the significance of the deeper teachings and more demanding practices in such a way that they would be able to appreciate them and benefit from them. Unfortunately, the LDS Church has largely failed to prepare even more seasoned members to appreciate and benefit from the same things. That failure results in people buying into views of their own religion that amount to denigration and even hostile attacks.

Mormonism Live is a great show in many ways, but I feel safe saying that Bill Reel's part of it is sometimes frankly unreflectively hostile to Mormonism. It is not that he has not thought a lot about Mormonism. It's more the case that he has thought an awful lot about how to see Mormonism through the eyes of a secular ex-member who has divorced his heart and mind from everything that makes LDS folk cherish the temple, the doctrine of exaltation, etc.

[Physics Guy]

Just how big are the differences between these Mormon teachings and their perceptions by non-Mormons? Is it a matter of gross caricatures that distort or omit substantial things? Or does it amount to nothing more than using terms with good or bad connotations?

Perhaps Mormons describe things in reverent terms that effectively add the statement, "And this is good!" while critics use pejorative language that effectively adds, "And this is bad!" If you strip off both those final value judgements, though, do the two descriptions actually differ in any other details?

[huckelberry]

Nevertheless, the film was rightly denounced by many Christians, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Look, when non-LDS people laugh about Mormons thinking they will become gods and receive their own planets, I think we all know that this has basis in LDS teaching past and present. At the same time, how one speaks or writes about religious doctrines makes a big difference. Exaltation does lie at the core of LDS doctrine, and it is silly to deny it. But I don't think LDS leaders are denying the doctrine of exaltation when they deny these two-dimensional caricatures. They are denying two-dimensional caricatures of what they view as sacred doctrine.



........ ex-member who has divorced his heart and mind from everything that makes LDS folk cherish the temple, the doctrine of exaltation, etc.

Kiskumen,
I think outsider comments about getting a planet makes it seem like the idea is a prize for passing the test. Images can trivialize it. That leaves out the great big matter of exaltation which is much more than a prize. But the transformations considered are a mystery. There is a lot there which overlaps traditional Christian hopes. There is more than enough unknown to make that difficult to speak of. Reluctance of leaders to try and explain in a general interview is understandable. I have never seem much reason to be shocked by the Larry King interview. ,

"Lds folks cherish the temple"
I find myself wondering if I have heard that phrase before. May have been too long ago to remember. Is there a way you could express the why and how? (or is it either obvious to someone or not really communicable?)

[consiglieri]

I would have to agree that some of the examples of gaslighting were stronger than others.

[Doctor Scratch]

Just how big are the differences between these Mormon teachings and their perceptions by non-Mormons? Is it a matter of gross caricatures that distort or omit substantial things? Or does it amount to nothing more than using terms with good or bad connotations?

I think the "getting to have your own planet" thing, while funny on some level, really is a caricature that distorts the central theological idea. What does that even mean--"get to have your own planet"? Do you "own" it? Do you live on it all by your lonesome? Do you get to populate it with flora and fauna, and people as you see fit? Saying that "Mormons believe they get to have their own planet" is a caricature because it minimizes the actual doctrine--which is that you become *a God*--and treats that belief like something out of Flash Gordon.

I think outsider comments about getting a planet makes it seem like the idea is a prize for passing the test. Images can trivialize it. That leaves out the great big matter of exaltation which is much more than a prize.

Becoming a full-fledged God is a lot bigger "prize" than merely getting to have one solitary planet. But I think you touch upon an important point: the Mopologists have alluded to the idea that they would be completely immoral without the Church, and by extension, they wouldn't follow the Church's teachings if they didn't also get to look forward to the big fat "prize" beyond the veil. Pointing this out tends to make them very uncomfortable, but I think there is a real truth to it. E.g., Midgley has often characterized his participation in the Church as an extended exercise in mind-numbing tedium--something that he actually refers to as a "probation"--but he's willing to put up with it because of what's on the other side of the veil.

[sock puppet]

I think all 'faith' beliefs are far-fetched, as I must be a Missourian at heart: Show Me is my motto.

Jesus was actually dead, then resurrected? How is that any less fantastical than Mormons becoming gods and getting their own planets? Or the Adam-God theory? Each could be. Sure, there were people that supposedly witnessed the resurrected Jesus, but do we have any of their own handwritten statements? We don't even have the gold plates of Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Now, there are categories of religious belief that have proven false. Dates for the end of times/Jesus' second coming have been declared, come and gone with just a sunset like any other day. 6' Quakers on the moon? No evidence of that.

If one accepts mainstream Christianity as true, then there are various Mormon teachings that hew closer to that Christianity while others vary wildly. But as I take note that mainstream Christianity's supernatural claims are also detached from facts and evidence, I find them just as preposterous as some of what are considered the more wacko Mormon concepts.

I am not as respectful of "sacred" beliefs as some other nonbelievers on this board are. I find what the Lafferty brothers did in the name of God to be grossly unacceptable, but wonder how much they were indulged leading up to that tragic event killing their sister-in-law and baby niece with a knife because their extreme fundamentalism started out as 'sacred' beliefs. Many of those that stormed the U.S. Capitol building on 1.6.2021 did so with very genuine "righteous indignation", assured that Jesus stands behind Donald Trump (as portrayed in paintings). Calling people out about their absurdities helps lead them, and onlookers, down more reasoned paths.

[LittleNipper]

I believe if one is honest, one will have a very hard time explaining "human exultation" in light of this Bible verse: Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 43:10
“You are MY witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and MY servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe ME
and understand that I AM HE.
Before ME no god was formed,
nor will there be one after ME.

This simple statement from GOD says, there ARE no other gods! There were none before our LORD GOD, and none are going to be created at anytime in the future. A person reading through the Bible with the intent of developing some new insight/doctrine would very likely miss this verse and be shown to be in error. This undermines the thought that one day some humans will become as GOD. Humans are created beings and have no eternal past as does OUR GOD. And there is also the big problem that most people professing to be CHRISTIAN understand GOD to have created EVERYTHING. GOD created SPACE, MATTER, and TIME. OUR LORD GOD, from a CHRISTIAN perspective, didn't use any preexisting primordial stew to fabricate this Universe. OUR LORD GOD was not dependent on anyone nor anything else.

And this is where Mormonism and JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY begin to rip apart. It becomes more and more apparent that the CHRISTIAN GOD of the Bible is far superior to the one Mormons regard. And it does appear to Christians who have spoken one on one with Mormons that the goal of Mormonism isn't to ultimately exult GOD but to achieve exultation for themselves and become a god. Anyway, I hope I've not offended anyone. And if I'm wrong about this matter, please inform me otherwise.

[Doctor Steuss]

It becomes more and more apparent that the CHRISTIAN GOD of the Bible is far superior to the one Mormons regard.

On the scale of "My deity can beat up your deity," which one would be superior:

A God that can create Gods?
Or, a God that can't create Gods?

[Gadianton]

Just how big are the differences between these Mormon teachings and their perceptions by non-Mormons? Is it a matter of gross caricatures that distort or omit substantial things? Or does it amount to nothing more than using terms with good or bad connotations?

Perhaps Mormons describe things in reverent terms that effectively add the statement, "And this is good!" while critics use pejorative language that effectively adds, "And this is bad!" If you strip off both those final value judgements, though, do the two descriptions actually differ in any other details?

I definitely sympathize, as I sympathize with Kishkumen. One obvious objection is that there aren't any details. While becoming a God is something that every Chapel Mormon believes, there are zero details aside from saying it will be something like what has gone on before with this world. There has never been anything taught on it even for advanced Mormons who get calling and election. When a drunk non-Mormon at a party long ago asked me about "getting my own planet" I asked him what made him think I'd only get one? The doctrine is eternal progression, which means an infinite number of planets.

It's really hard to pin down the distinction that makes a difference, though. I have to say, on the balance, the anti version is close enough, and if the Church were ever to have their own film strip explaining it, they could use Decker's cartoon.

It's psychologically jarring as a member to be questioned about this, and maybe I can offer a glimpse into why it's somewhat unfair to hit members with it out of the blue.

There isn't a 1-1 comparison to the Christian idea of being "saved" and Mormons becoming a God and "getting" planets. First, consider the normal Christian idea of salvation is dumber than crap for the opposite reason. Singing praises to Jesus forever? Do you know how long forever is? In an infinite amount of time, what are your limits, because you're going to get pretty damned bored.

A Christian goes to heaven and gets a robe and a crown, and then sings to Jesus. A Mormon doesn't go to heaven and "get a planet". Mormons believe extensively in works, not grace. While Christians may get together and crow over how wonderful heaven will be with all the singing and peace, Mormons are doing the same, singing and peace, and in particular, they are NOT crowing about how wonderful it's going to be to create planets and be all powerful. I've never in my life have heard Mormons talking up (in seriousness and not jesting) their future lives as Gods having many sex partners and designing novel flora and fauna; getting creative about the commandments they'll invent for children and so on. That would be super blasphemous and not even the most narcissistic that I've ever found talk seriously about become a God. Mormons believe it's ultimately the logical consequence, love to speculate about how it all works bout, but it may be a 190 million year training process and personal betterment process -- their will be quite a slug to butterfly thing before they will ever be a God, and they aren't looking that far into the future.

So when you ask a Mormon about this and catch them off guard, it's not like being asked about lust or morality, where they're embarrassed because they know deep down they are as perverted as any Gentile, and especially in the particulars of that perversion, but the assumptions of the question should put a huge amount of embarrassment in terms of self-aggrandizement on the member in a similar way, except in this case, members really don't have rich fantasy lives about their future lives as Gods.

[LittleNipper]

It becomes more and more apparent that the CHRISTIAN GOD of the Bible is far superior to the one Mormons regard.

On the scale of "My deity can beat up your deity," which one would be superior:

A God that can create Gods?
Or, a God that can't create Gods?

The GOD who cannot create other GODs is far superior, because such a GOD wasn't the brainchild of some other GOD bigger than HIM.