why me wrote:DarkHelmet wrote:
I wonder why Why Me wants to deny exalatation leads to godhood. When I was TBM back in the 90s this was one of the most exciting things in Mormonism. One of the peculiar doctrines that set the church apart from other religions. Mormons don't just go to heaven, they can be exalted as gods and goddesses. This doctrine was celebrated, and it was what all Mormons aspired to become. Back then, nobody was embarrassed by it. Even when the mainstream christians were critical of that doctrine, we were proud of it. Even today, as a non-believer, I think it's a cool doctrine.
It doesn't say it in the sciptures nor is it taught in the manuals. Now members do have their own opinions and no one may disagree with the answers they give or with the opinions. But the church website and the scriptures that have been quoted on this thread by me and others do not say anything about being gods of planets. But there is references to living with our heavenly father and partaking of his divine nature. And so what is there to deny? Unfortunately, the early apostles did not obtain such a godhood as having their own planet since they were still messengers for the father, partaking of his divine nature. The church website did not lie.
the scriptures say it. the manuals say it. and now i am saying this - you are a great Mormon. really. you are spectacular. you can take any bit of information, and any amount of evidence, and make it fit into your OBEDIENT little head. the church, and your testimony of all things Mormon, is stronger than logic, reason and facts. you are the face of Mormonism. you are exactly what most of us saw in a bishop, teacher, and many other members and leaders within the church.
whether or not otterson and monson profess to believe that their followers aspire to become gods makes no difference, really. that is not the point of this discussion. we can all read the links to the church manuals and the scriptures and see exactly what we were always told.
the story now is you - you the Mormon. and you are, again, the face of Mormonism right now. what will become the bigger story is how much fortitude the members of that religion have, and for what? you, the face of Mormonism, are showing quite clearly that the core followers of Mormonism are willing to avoid every element of fact or logic to defend and apologize for the church and for otterson's office. it doesn't matter if it is consistent, as long as you pledge allegiance to the church.
the current political arena is bringing this attention to the church. when it comes to appealing to swing voters and moderate voters, this sort of cult behavior will not impress. the church would be better to state facts and actual tenets, and let their membership declare for themselves how they consider these beliefs. instead, otterson declares for everyone what we sorta believe and know (or don't know) and the faithful will defend it, toe the line, and apologize for the obfuscations of a pr department and it's employer.
the Mormonism 101 story is missing something else too. did this not happen once before? wasn't there a letter written to the press, or even a newspaper that detailed what we believe?
yes. there was. those article of faith things. and those were written by smith, and sent to chicago.
what we have in Mormonism 101 is nameless (though we know its otterson). it is done anonymously where nobody has any responsibility for the words. but, responsibility and ownership of those words is not necessary, because Mormons will follow follow follow, and apologize and defend it regardless of what is actually written.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
