Why I Left / Breaking the News

[_Jersey Girl]

And the difference is what....?

The difference is many gods vs many gods. Please try to keep up. ;-)

Thus far, Coggins has argued primarily from a "that's for me to know and you to find out so nyah" position. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Please go on about your business.

[_Jason Bourne]

I was immediately struck with the fact that I had been, for my whole life, a polytheist.

Earth to Kimberly: LDS are not polytheists.

You have a long, long, long way to go...

What are you talking about?? They worship God the Father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. Sounds like polytheism to me.

I don't know how long I may hang around here at this point, but attempts at doctrinal or philosophical explication of concepts such as this seem to become ever more futile as time goes on.

I suspect that, in reality, most of the intellectual denseness one finds here isn't really intellectual denseness so much as sheer hostility to the Church. Accepting LDS doctrine as LDS understand it simply pops too many bubbles and wrinkles too many templates.

There are three gods, each a separate individual. We acknowledge their individuality but worship them as one; we worship the Father directly, as an individual, but in so doing, worship all.

The countless other gods, worlds without end, that exist, exist, but are not worshiped. They have no direct relevance to us, or salvation or our eternal progression. Only in worshiping them would we become polytheists. We cannot become polytheists by simply ackknowldeing there existence.

I gotta agree with Droopy on this one.

[_Jason Bourne]

BY seemed to think that Adam was pretty important. To the point of being the only God we have anything to do with.

This has to do with Adam's position regarding Priesthood authority (to the degree that the Adam he mentions here is the same Adam who is the Father of the human race), and not a singular status as our god.

Nah. BY really thought Adam was God. Can't slide by this one.

You discount the LoF, but they were lectures given by the founder of your church.

They were written by Sidney Rigdon

He may have written some but Joseph Smith likely wrote some as well, and is the most likely author of Lecture 5, with Parley Pratt under consideration as well. But who care who wrote them. Rigdon was a member of the FP. The Church accepted them into canon.

[_Jersey Girl]

I was immediately struck with the fact that I had been, for my whole life, a polytheist.

Earth to Kimberly: LDS are not polytheists.

You have a long, long, long way to go...

What are you talking about?? They worship God the Father, Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. Sounds like polytheism to me.

I don't know how long I may hang around here at this point, but attempts at doctrinal or philosophical explication of concepts such as this seem to become ever more futile as time goes on.

I suspect that, in reality, most of the intellectual denseness one finds here isn't really intellectual denseness so much as sheer hostility to the Church. Accepting LDS doctrine as LDS understand it simply pops too many bubbles and wrinkles too many templates.

There are three gods, each a separate individual. We acknowledge their individuality but worship them as one; we worship the Father directly, as an individual, but in so doing, worship all.

The countless other gods, worlds without end, that exist, exist, but are not worshiped. They have no direct relevance to us, or salvation or our eternal progression. Only in worshiping them would we become polytheists. We cannot become polytheists by simply ackknowldeing there existence.

I gotta agree with Droopy on this one.

I'm not sure which part of the above you are in agreement with however, polytheism in NO WAY requires worship of multiple gods.
Do you see when he states this?

"Only in worshiping them would we become polytheists. We cannot become polytheists by simply ackknowldeing there existence."

He is completely wrong.

[_Jason Bourne]

I gotta agree with Droopy on this one.

I'm not sure which part of the above you are in agreement with however, polytheism in NO WAY requires worship of multiple gods.
Do you see when he states this?

"Only in worshiping them would we become polytheists. We cannot become polytheists by simply ackknowldeing there existence."

He is completely wrong.

In my thoughts when was says polytheism it brings up something like the Romans and all their Gods that they named and worshiped. LDS do not do this. The gods that they think may be there are really in abstract. They may be in another dimension or Universe. But they are so abstract that allowing for their existence is I think a real stretch to make LDS polytheists. And Droopy is also right that we still worship only Father, Son and HG as One God an all ways but for essence. I guess since we believe they are seperate you might have and argument for tritheism but that is about it.

[_KimberlyAnn]

You're a tiny frog in a very deep and spacious well...

Tiny frogs can be deadly, Coggs. I must be one of these as your frenzied objections to my OP make you seem quite threatened:

Frankly Kimberly, whatever your real reasons for leaving the Church, I don't doubt that anything you could have latched onto, from the Bible or anywhere else, would have given you the pretext you needed.

My real reasons?

You don't know me, Coggs. I don't know you. BCSpace doesn't know me and I don't know him. Oddly, though you both believe me to be an embittered, sinful, lying, Biblically illiterate apostate, I am more than willing to give you both, complete strangers, the benefit of the doubt--I do not assume that when you share a personal story that either of you are lying. My default assumption, generally, is that people are telling me the truth.

Maybe that's a fault, but I'd rather continue in my faultiness than become like either of you.

Though they be common, or cliché, my *real* reasons for leaving Mormonism are exactly as I expressed them, as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.

KA

[_Droopy]

Thanks for the heads up. Before you go, might you consider addressing polytheism, plurality of gods or henotheism? That was our sub topic.

I already did dipstick, but your Kindergarten reading comprehension skills apparently caused you to miss out.

[_Droopy]

Try practicing your reading skill man. I was with you on this one save my comment to BC on the Lectures. If you were not such a pompous ass always ready to pounce on people maybe you would get further.

Oh and by the way, pretend as you might the Lectures are an issue for the LDS Church and its own evolution about who and what God is. Your pathetic attempts and trying to pretend there is not a problem is exactly that. Pathetiuc.

The LDS Church was not polytheistic to start with certainly. And most apologists argue it is not now. Are you arguing it is.

You are a disgrace to your Church Jason (how do you like coming back in your direction?)

Try to enjoy the daylight.

[_Droopy]

And the difference is what....?

Is this stupidity of the common sort , or crazy like a fox stupidity, the kind that acts as a provocation and a pretense to serious discussion when the provocateur doesn't have the intellectual resources to make good on his provocation; when the provocateur has a personal agenda that won't tolerate clarity or simplicity of thought?

If you don't know the difference between classic polytheism and the LDS understanding of plurality of gods, then all I can say is you should have payed more attention when you were a Sunbeam, and you wouldn't be having all of these problems now. I'm not going to bother any further trying to educate a fellow Mormon (and a....Bishop????) on philosophical and theological questions he should have worked thorough for himself a long time ago, and would have, were he serious about doing so.

Really large cafeterias have a great deal to choose from, I realize, and one can't sample everything, can one? One's plate just isn't big enough.

[_Droopy]

Nah. BY really thought Adam was God. Can't slide by this one.

You have no idea what he really meant. The various statements are confusing in the extreme, and may involve different characters sharing similar name titles and functions at different times.

Very frankly Jason, I think a really deep theological and philosophical discussion about this would be too far over your head and too injurious to your personal agenda of doubt regarding the Church and some of its fundamental doctrines to be anything but an exercise in futility.

You won't listen to reasoned arguments any more than Dartagnon will. Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, pompous asses, disgraces to the Church, and don't make enough nice in the face of your quasi-exmo subversion of faith and testimony of others to assuage you holy moral wrath.

No wonder you defend Harmony so vigorously.