Page 1 of 1
New Mormonism
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2026 4:08 pm
by Tapir Rodeo
I think this brief video serves as an excellent primer for people who are trying to understand the New Mormons. Not only do they deny their own prophet's teachings, they also seem to deny their own prior teaching when it is convenient.
https://www.Facebook.com/reel/997205129526970
Re: New Mormonism
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2026 7:20 pm
by drumdude
I think infinite regression is the natural implication of the teachings of the LDS church. Joseph Smith taught it directly. Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet is still referenced a lot. You can't just slice off the first half of the couplet, that's the whole point of it.
When you go through the temple, you are again reinforcing the idea that you can become another God in the long line of Gods. Satan says it explicitly: "As has been done on other worlds." The pattern is the permanent part, all of the souls including our God are just particles in the wave.
I have a book on Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism sitting on my shelf. The 1978 show has a direct analog to the couplet: "As you now are, we once were; as we now are you may yet become." This wasn't the writers finding some obscure LDS belief hidden in the back of the church archives. The 2000's reboot continues with the Mormon allusions, ""All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again." God is not eternal, only the Universe in which God forms is.
So now the LDS church wants to be more mainstream Christian, they have to throw all of that down the memory hole. And gaslight everyone into believing this wasn't a core doctrine, it was just mere speculation.
Re: New Mormonism
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2026 7:52 pm
by sock puppet
drumdude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 7:20 pm
So now the LDS church wants to be more mainstream Christian, they have to throw all of that down the memory hole. And gaslight everyone into believing this wasn't a core doctrine, it was just mere speculation.
Mormonism in the modern era. The LDS leaders are as good at denying today what they and their predecessors espoused yesterday as Donald Trump is when he denies what he is on tape as having said as recently as two days beforehand. Fake news! Fake news!
Re: New Mormonism
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2026 7:57 pm
by Rivendale
drumdude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2026 7:20 pm
I think infinite regression is the natural implication of the teachings of the LDS church. Joseph Smith taught it directly. Lorenzo Snow's famous couplet is still referenced a lot. You can't just slice off the first half of the couplet, that's the whole point of it.
When you go through the temple, you are again reinforcing the idea that you can become another God in the long line of Gods. Satan says it explicitly: "
As has been done on other worlds." The pattern is the permanent part, all of the souls including our God are just particles in the wave.
I have a book on Battlestar Galactica and Mormonism sitting on my shelf. The 1978 show has a direct analog to the couplet: "As you now are, we once were; as we now are you may yet become." This wasn't the writers finding some obscure LDS belief hidden in the back of the church archives. The 2000's reboot continues with the Mormon allusions, ""All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again." God is not eternal, only the Universe in which God forms is.
So now the LDS church wants to be more mainstream Christian, they have to throw all of that down the memory hole. And gaslight everyone into believing this wasn't a core doctrine, it was just mere speculation.
Kobol was Kolob. The lost 13th tribe. Quorum of the 12. Marriages for eternity. Resurrection capabilities with the Cylons. A lot of Mormonism baked in.
Re: New Mormonism
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2026 8:50 pm
by Dwight
Amazing to see Jonah Barnes being right when he tried to argue against Adam God being taught by Brigham Young not too long ago.
He got a great zinger when that guy said he didn’t have a survey and Jonah pointed out neither did he, so that guy didn’t have any better footing.
Infinite regress was always either outright confirmed or the implication, to claim otherwise is just laughable. That guy wanted a prophet saying he didn’t know as denying it or disavowing it was pretty weak too. I think that apologist is very familiar with Hinckley saying one thing to Time magazine about not knowing if we teach or emphasize it, and then reaffirming that the prophet is well aware of the doctrine of the church a couple of months later.