Renlund attempts to slam the door shut on Heavenly Mother

[Free Ranger]

Going to bed, I will respond tomorrow.

[Markk]

Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application.9 Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation.

Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed.10 For example, the Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.”11 We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother.12

Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated “of [their] own mind”13 or teach what has not been revealed. Consider the words of the Old Testament prophet Balaam, who was offered a bribe to curse the Israelites to benefit Moab. Balaam said, “If [the king of Moab] would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.”14 Latter-day prophets are similarly constrained. Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng

In other words, read the gospel topic essay and shut up. Renlund reinforces the point in his closing paragraph…

Our Heavenly Father wants you to become His heir and receive all that He has.40 He cannot offer you more. He cannot promise you more. He loves you more than you know and wants you to be happy in this life and in the life to come. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng

In summary, get Heavenly Mothers name, out your <adjective> mouth…<slap>

The law of eternal progression and the continuation of seeds demand a Heavenly Mother, there is just no way around it. As the nature of God evolves and assimilates in LDS theology, the reality, need, and absolute requirement for a HM becomes more evident. Eternal progression just does not work without a HM.

This also ties into BY’s Adam God teachings about Adam and one of his wives coming to “this earth”…and while not always specific, again, eternal progression and the promise of section 132 wont work without a HM.

I can see where BY was running with this, and leading the saints towards a HM…i.e. an Adam and a Eve from another world…but given most saints then, were deeply ingrained in the Protestant understanding of God, a triune self sufficient God, it was confusing.

After BY died, there was a lot confusion in regards to the nature of God…in that no everyone believed in Adam God, especially Pratt. So enters Talmage, and his invention of divine investiture…reeling in BY and to a degree Joseph Smith’s concept of a HF and HM , and concentrating and a HF and Jehovah and their rolls and how to understand the confusion the saints were having with BY’s teachings.

But again, a HM is essential to eternal progression, the endowments and “families are forever”…so Relund’s talk is reinforcing the need for a HM which is the live blood of the single most important doctrine of the church, which is eternal progression, the continuation of seeds, and Godhood.

My two cents

[Morley]

How did most of their gods act (which mirrored their morality)?

The concept that the morality expressed in any given society is a mirror of their religious mythologies is kind of ludicrous, if you think about it. You can't really believe this.

[dastardly stem]

I have sympathy for the Mormon leaders in a sense on this. Stuffing a mother god into the theology after its all been rendered a man thing may just upset the whole enterprise or scam if you want to view it that way. If you're like me and notice God is hiding in every way possible, one must wonder how much better his wife or wives are at this game of hide n seek. If these old codgers allow everyone to start seeing a mom God in every way they want to see a dad God, I don't really see a problem. The problem may come though when they start looking everywhere else were God is not (which seems to be everywhere until some old dude starts saying he's not there--like at first the church supported racism, now they supposedly don't and all those who saw God in racism were just seeing things, apparently). That's, I guess, Renlund's great fear. I mean I'd say the scam would be up in short order if that was all allowed. People would recognize that every supposed "revelation" is nothing more than man-inspired thinking on religious things.

Anyway, Renlund's comments really uncover the difficulty of maintaining control.

Reason cannot replace revelation.

Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed.

I read that, roll my eyes and see the problem of Mormonism, and organized religion in general, explicitly stated for all religious people to notice and move away from. If religion doesn't speculate it can't move or adapt. But we all know it needs to. You can't explicitly preach racism forever and expect to live as a religion. You have to speculate your way out of the trap you set for yourself, it seems to me.

To his first point, of course, reason can replace revelation. Revelation in this context is just the ideas of some dudes who want people to follow them. Keeping people in line with the use of fear tactics like "we can't let them think for themselves" masked under the guise of "revelation" (whatever that is these days) is the problem Mormons need to wake up to.

[Free Ranger]

I think if we were sit down and have a cup of coffee and a long conversation, I ...

Yet here we are. And all I have are your words, my friend.

Does this mean you want to sincerely be my friend? Or did you mean something else, and if so what? I'm sincerely trying to build a bridge and seeking understanding with my questions.

[Free Ranger]

How did most of their gods act (which mirrored their morality)?

The concept that the morality expressed in any given society is a mirror of their religious mythologies is kind of ludicrous, if you think about it. You can't really believe this.

I have no idea if you have a sense of morality or ethics, but I'm going to offer a suggestion that we apply rapoport's rules: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules

So what I hear you saying is that the gods of any culture are not representative of the culture's ethical guidelines. What I think you are trying to say is that the gods are often depicted as too fantastical and mythical to be the only source of their ethical codes. If that is what you are saying, I think I agree.

What I am saying is that, for example, the New Testament presents Jesus as a supernatural hero god that has an ethic that is different than many of the other pagan gods. There is a wealth of biblical scholarship on this subject if you are curious.

This is why Thomas Jefferson, despite the flaws in his personal life, produced his Jefferson Bible. He cut out all the supernatural stuff but he believed that his ethics was derived or mirrored in the person of Jesus. He called his edited New Testament, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." He believed that America would benefit from following this Ethic.
Since objective biblical Scholars are convinced that nearly everything (or a lot) that Jesus is said to have said and done is based on creative license (what the scholarship calls Narrative Scripturalization, Figural Reading or Midrash); in that the New Testament authors are creatively producing a heroic god to replace the ethic of the pagan gods, I don't think it's ludicrous what I said.

I also recommend C. G. Jung's Essay on Wotan: http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writin ... -c-g-jung/
Jung talks about the Norse god Wotan mirroring the pagan morality and psychological state of the Nazis under Hitler. Watching documentaries on Hitler's concept of god and religion and Hitler's use of ritual pageantry to create a dramatic experience, it's clear to me that he borrowed heavily from Norse gods and mythology to ground his pagan ethics; while combining it with aspects of Nietzscheanism and other pagan mystical ideas.

On top of this, Richard Wagner's musical Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring Cycle) had glamorized the pagan ethic of Norse gods and heroes which influenced Nietzsche and many Germans. So no I do not think my statement is ludicrous.

Note as well, that most of my Viking ancestors eventually converted to Christianity, it's God and Ethos, and we can see the cultural result of that in Scandinavia today (even though they are, a lot of them, non-theistic).

[Free Ranger]

< post snipped>

...
Ha! It's too bad the Greeks and Romans didn't have any philosophers and are only known for "might makes right" and pedophilia.

Morely,

I brought up how pedophilia was normalized in Roman times, and Paul played a part in eradicating its normalization; and linked to a fellow exmormon Jonathan Streeters video on how some on the extreme far Left are defending pedophilia, see https://youtu.be/qAP4czG3DjE
Do you think that Christianity had anything to do with eradicating this former normalization of pedophilia? Do you think that the way Jesus was/is depicted as a god in the New Testament, and Jesus's attitude toward children, had anything to do with how people in Roman times thought about children once Christianity became more popular and part of the society's group consciousness?

[Free Ranger]

.

[Free Ranger]

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng

In other words, read the gospel topic essay and shut up. Renlund reinforces the point in his closing paragraph…

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... d?lang=eng

In summary, get Heavenly Mothers name, out your <adjective> mouth…<slap>

The law of eternal progression and the continuation of seeds demand a Heavenly Mother, there is just no way around it. As the nature of God evolves and assimilates in LDS theology, the reality, need, and absolute requirement for a HM becomes more evident. Eternal progression just does not work without a HM. ...

... But again, a HM is essential to eternal progression, the endowments and “families are forever”…so Relund’s talk is reinforcing the need for a HM which is the live blood of the single most important doctrine of the church, which is eternal progression, the continuation of seeds, and Godhood.

My two cents

I agree with this. You make some good points. Good analysis. I had never thought about how that is what Brigham Young was trying to do.

[Morley]

The concept that the morality expressed in any given society is a mirror of their religious mythologies is kind of ludicrous, if you think about it. You can't really believe this.

I have no idea if you have a sense of morality or ethics, but I'm going to offer a suggestion that we apply rapoport's rules: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules

That was no straw man. I replied specifically to what you said.

So what I hear you saying is that the gods of any culture are not representative of the culture's ethical guidelines. What I think you are trying to say is that the gods are often depicted as too fantastical and mythical to be the only source of their ethical codes. If that is what you are saying, I think I agree.

Excellent.

What I am saying is that, for example, the New Testament presents Jesus as a supernatural hero god that has an ethic that is different than many of the other pagan gods. There is a wealth of biblical scholarship on this subject if you are curious.

Sure. Every religion is different in the stories of their supernatural heroes. You seem to be implying Christianity is not just different, but better. Of course some Biblical scholars are going to think Jesus is better. As you can guess, I'm not so sure that he is.

This is why Thomas Jefferson, despite the flaws in his personal life, produced his Jefferson Bible. He cut out all the supernatural stuff but he believed that his ethics was derived or mirrored in the person of Jesus. He called his edited New Testament, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." He believed that America would benefit from following this Ethic.

Yeah. Thank you for making my point. Jefferson rejected the religious mythologies of Christianity because he didn't think they expressed any moral message for society. He focused on the teachings that are part of almost any other religious or philosophical guidelines that have stood the test of time.

Since objective biblical Scholars are convinced that nearly everything (or a lot) that Jesus is said to have said and done is based on creative license (what the scholarship calls Narrative Scripturalization, Figural Reading or Midrash); in that the New Testament authors are creatively producing a heroic god to replace the ethic of the pagan gods, I don't think it's ludicrous what I said.

Or borrowing from the ethics of what you call pagan gods.

I also recommend C. G. Jung's Essay on Wotan: http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writin ... -c-g-jung/
Jung talks about the Norse god Wotan mirroring the pagan morality and psychological state of the Nazis under Hitler. Watching documentaries on Hitler's concept of god and religion and Hitler's use of ritual pageantry to create a dramatic experience, it's clear to me that he borrowed heavily from Norse gods and mythology to ground his pagan ethics; while combining it with aspects of Nietzscheanism and other pagan mystical ideas.

Sure. However, the most heinous act of Nazism, The Holocaust, was influenced by the Christian mythology of the degenerate nature of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies.

I'm not saying that political leaders don't use religious mythology to justify their ends. I am saying that when you suggest that a mythological Zeus raping women demonstrates the inferiority of Greek morality, that you're wrong.

On top of this, Richard Wagner's musical Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring Cycle) had glamorized the pagan ethic of Norse gods and heroes which influenced Nietzsche and many Germans. So no I do not think my statement is ludicrous.

Yes, artists use Norse, Greek, Jewish, and Christian mythology all the time.