Watered Down Mormonism?

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy, in another thread, thinks that when I say the brethren have back peddled from much of what Mormism used to be, says I am the one who has back peddled. Well perhaps.

But here is a link from the Prophet Seer and Newsroom, that new pronouncer of revelation and doctrine for the LDS Church. Take a look at let me know what you think? Has the LDS Church back peddled? On some of these I don't think many leaders from SWK back would recognize a lot of the LDS Church today?

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13

How about this:

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Thank you GBH we don't know much about that. What happened to God being man and we learning to become a god just like our God did? Where is that?

And this:

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

Well BY and crew certainly believed this and taught is. So did McConkie and JFS. So did all my seminary teachers. Guess they were wrong.


And this:

Do Mormon women lead in the Church?

Yes. All women are daughters of a loving Heavenly Father. Women and men are equal in the sight of God. The Bible says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In the family, a wife and a husband form an equal partnership in leading and raising a family.

From the beginning of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints women have played an integral role in the work of the Church. While worthy men hold the priesthood, worthy women serve as leaders, counselors, missionaries, teachers, and in many other responsibilities— they routinely preach from the pulpit and lead congregational prayers in worship services. They serve both in the Church and in their local communities and contribute to the world as leaders in a variety of professions. Their vital and unique contribution to raising children is considered an important responsibility and a special privilege of equal importance to priesthood responsibilities.

I will let the women here opine on this.


And this:

Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

So was Joseph Smith wrong? What then was Adam-ondi-Ahman?

[_Alfredo]

It's official doctrine of the church that official doctrine can never be wrong.

So, why should we care to point out secondary contradictions which assume the fact that is its only defense?

In order to prove something which will never be accepted under any condition?

The only point that must be made is defenders of official doctrine can provide no coherent reason to consider official doctrine as unconditionally correct without appealing to that same circularly supported presupposition.

It's a broken idea. Its defense only makes sense given its unconditional statements.

Unconditional acceptance will forever serve itself in a vacuum by design...

...and Mormons give no better reason to jump into their particular vacuum of logic than into any contrary paradigm.

[_Equality]

Those statements don't look like backpeddling to me; they look more like dissembling.

President Newsroom is merely continuing the long tradition of the Prophets who have previously occupied the highest position in the church of teaching one thing to the members and something else to the public.

[_Jason Bourne]

Those statements don't look like backpeddling to me; they look more like dissembling.

President Newsroom is merely continuing the long tradition of the Prophets who have previously occupied the highest position in the church of teaching one thing to the members and something else to the public.

So you are saying we do believe a lot of these things but Newsroom is obfuscating. Yea I could agree to that.

[_Tobin]

Actually, the idea that Mormons can become God is blasphemy and a misconception that only some Mormons (and those outside the church) have.

Man is quite unlike God. We are unable to save ourselves and lack the necessary intelligence. God is always perfect. God never sins. This is not true of man and so we can never be God due to that.

What Joseph Smith taught was God that Father was a man like Christ, who is also God. This is where the misconception comes from. We are not Christ or capable of being Christ. We can be saved and share in what God has and become gods, but we will never be able to be God.

As far as the gods having their own individual planet, that is also false. The gods will inherit the earth and this will be a Celestial sphere.

[_DarkHelmet]

I like this.

Do Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is... Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area.

So it could be in Missouri then? If not Missouri, maybe Kansas? It seems a simple "Yes" is the correct answer to this question, if one is to believe Joseph Smith and not be embarrassed by it.

I'm waiting for apologists to argue that "somewhere in that area" could be a radius of tens of thousands of miles. After all, Mars is in the same general area as Earth, and they are millions of miles apart. Therefore, the Garden of Eden could still be in the Middle East.

[_consiglieri]

What Joseph Smith taught was God that Father was a man like Christ, who is also God. This is where the misconception comes from. We are not Christ or capable of being Christ. We can be saved and share in what God has and become gods, but we will never be able to be God.

As far as the gods having their own individual planet, that is also false. The gods will inherit the earth and this will be a Celestial sphere.

I appreciate reading your comments, Tobin, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

While it is true the King Follett Discourse can be interpreted in the way you suggest, my feeling is a straightforward reading of it (and combining all the known accounts) leads to the conclusion that Joseph Smith taught man can become as God is. Which means become a God.

As God is, man may become.

You know how it goes.

My impression is that those who interpret this as meaning God was once like Christ (as opposed to Some Schmo--where has he gotten to, by the way?) do so in order to make it more palatable to outside readers. It certainly reduces its power.

The speculation that exalted beings will have "their own planets" is just an extension of that idea. Is God an exalted being? Does he have his own planet? If so, why should things be different for others who become exalted?

There are planets aplenty where the Gods dwell.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Darth J]

The Sermon in the Grove: http://emp.byui.edu/jexj/courses/sermon ... _grove.htm


I want to read the text to you myself -- "I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist -- two men on the earth, one wise than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus -- If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

[_Darth J]

Oh, and by the way....

http://emp.byui.edu/jexj/courses/sermon ... _grove.htm

I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

So much for the catalyst theory.

[_Tobin]

What Joseph Smith taught was God that Father was a man like Christ, who is also God. This is where the misconception comes from. We are not Christ or capable of being Christ. We can be saved and share in what God has and become gods, but we will never be able to be God.
As far as the gods having their own individual planet, that is also false. The gods will inherit the earth and this will be a Celestial sphere.

I appreciate reading your comments, Tobin, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here.
While it is true the King Follett Discourse can be interpreted in the way you suggest, my feeling is a straightforward reading of it (and combining all the known accounts) leads to the conclusion that Joseph Smith taught man can become as God is. Which means become a God.
As God is, man may become.
You know how it goes.
My impression is that those who interpret this as meaning God was once like Christ (as opposed to Some Schmo--where has he gotten to, by the way?) do so in order to make it more palatable to outside readers. It certainly reduces its power.
The speculation that exalted beings will have "their own planets" is just an extension of that idea. Is God an exalted being? Does he have his own planet? If so, why should things be different for others who become exalted?
There are planets aplenty where the Gods dwell.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri

Oh, I know that, but I believe they are mistaken. Christ is the only begotten of the Father. We are children of the Celestial and not God the Father. There are two types of beings in consideration here. There is God who saves and the gods who are saved. I think Mormons that believe we can save ourselves or do what Christ did (and saw his Father do) are seriously mistaken and guily of blasphemy.

I believe what happens is there is God, who organizes a savior (the only begotten of God), and there are the Celestials (gods), who organize the other other spirit children (you and me). A new world is formed and made ready for these spirit children and the savior comes down and saves them (and this what has happened and will happen forever). I believe this is what Joseph Smith was driving at.