Oaks confirms we have heavenly mothers.

[MG 2.0]

Judge, jury, and executioner.

Regards,
MG

Your posts speak for themselves. I’ve summarised them accurately. As anyone and everyone reading can see. Except you.

I have absolutely no doubt that many here are sitting in your dugout playing on the same team.

You are playing judge, jury, and executioner in my humble opinion. You don't have to answer to anyone.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

You are playing judge, jury, and executioner in my humble opinion. You don't have to answer to anyone.

Nonsense. All of us who post on this board do so at the risk that someone cleverer or better informed than we are will show up one of our posts as being nonsensical or grossly ignorant.

IHQ is a sitting duck for you whenever you wish to engage him. Have at him! Show us what you can do!

[huckelberry]

Mormonism is not the only religious belief system to count amongst its members large numbers who, if you get them to talk about their faith, will be found to be ignorant of significant parts of the official doctrines of the organisation, or even to knowingly disagree with significant parts of those doctrines.

Of course. That much is obvious.

The problem is that huckelberry doesn't seem to realize that. He seems to think that if some Mormon, somewhere, doesn't accept X, then the entirety of Mormonism itself is A-O.K. with its members not accepting X.

I guess I said too little to be clear. Any church is going to have people with limited knowledge of church doctrine, perhaps a spectrum of degrees of ignorance. I think Mormon culture takes some pride in people knowing church doctrine. The leadership instructs people to be knowledgeable. Not having professional clergy requires having knowledgeable people, after all you will be listening to them speak in church next Sunday. In a Protestant or Catholic church you will hear a professionally trained individual not that guy in the Pew behind you. In a Mormon congregation that fellow in the pew will have received instruction in doctrine. He not likely to be full of doctrinal oddities nor are doctrinal oddities viewed as acceptable.

Chap may be thinking of two things. One doctrinal level of understanding in nonlds congregations has a wider spread of degree. Second there are details of doctrine that admit to variation for ministers and leaders not just people in pews. It is this second variation in question here. Shades does not believe thinking God the father is eternally God is an acceptable variation for LDS. I have some inclination to agree but I do not make such determinations. I have heard some Mormons sound like they do not think with King Follet.

Some of what I heard was apologists wanting to emphasize the similarity of LDS teaching of divinization to teaching of early church fathers. There certainly is overlap but King Follet emphasizes what does not overlap. There is pressure as a result to downplay or to leave it out. Maybe not accept that business about God once being a man like ourself. Ask a Mormon whether God was once in time past a sinner? You might not get confident answers.

I had a seminary teacher who provided the class with copies of both King Follett discourse and the Lectures on Faith. We were able to notice differences in understanding. The ideas in King Follet were surprising to some of us 16 or 17 year Olds.

I think King Follet fits the main line of LDS teaching. I am not aware of people fudging on their thoughts on the matter receiving discipline or instructional conferences. As result I am unsure of church policy. I myself think K F is a castle built on sand so sometimes ask questions about it.

[Moksha]

There is a debate currently on the MD&D board as to whether God's various Mothers in Heaven are of Different Races. This would allow most North American Mormons to be of the Pure and Delightsome race.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... r-mothers/

What does MG think about this?

[Rivendale]

There is a debate currently on the MD&D board as to whether God's various Mothers in Heaven are of Different Races. This would allow most North American Mormons to be of the Pure and Delightsome race.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... r-mothers/

The possibility of there being several Heavenly Mothers could help explain why there are various races within the human family. If the terrestrial bodies of both Adam and Eve were the carriers of the dominant and recessive genes of one Heavenly Father and several Heavenly Mothers, from a long genetic history, all this would combine to comprise a diverse genetic makeup within each of their reproductive systems. This could help account for why there is so much interesting genetic diversity within the human race.

What does MG think about this?

I don't have the right words to describe this.

[Marcus]

There is a debate currently on the MD&D board as to whether God's various Mothers in Heaven are of Different Races. This would allow most North American Mormons to be of the Pure and Delightsome race.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... r-mothers/

What does MG think about this?

I don't have the right words to describe this.

Oh my. Well, our friend Ben McGuire tried, but really, where can you possibly go with such a bizarre idea?

So we invent a new kind of racism? ...

[Moksha]

[Dr. Shades]

[huckelberry] seems to think that if some Mormon, somewhere, doesn't accept X, then the entirety of Mormonism itself is A-O.K. with its members not accepting X.

Well, I suppose the Church is okay with some variances in what members choose to believe. You aren’t going to be refused a temple recommend if, for example, you choose to believe the global flood story in the Bible is something other than a literal, historical, global flood.

Of course. They want to keep their tithe payers.

Some cafeterianism (new word?) is accepted, maybe in a don’t ask don’t tell basis.

The "don't ask, don't tell" part is key to what Mormonism is A-O.K. with and what it isn't, contra huckelberry's assumptions.

You realize that such Mormons are either in apostasy or don't know their own doctrine, right?

I don't think it is up to the critics to determine who is worthy and who is not worthy of a temple recommend.

I'm not talking about temple recommends. The church wants to keep as many tithe payers as it can, so apostasy won't disqualify one from getting a recommend, just so long as one keeps one's apostasy to oneself.

What is interesting is that there is more room for free thought and having questions within the church in regards to its teachings and doctrines than there is for those that are outside looking in. That seems to be apparent by some comments in this thread.

huckelberry isn't talking about free thought and having questions. He's apparently assuming that because one member, somewhere, misinterprets Mormon teachings and doctrine that the church magically becomes O.K. with those misinterpretations being part of the mainstream.

But by all means, share your free thought and questions as though they are mainstream Mormon thought in your next Elder's Quorum or High Priest meeting, then see where it gets you.

Maybe not accept that business a out God once being a man like ourself.

What is "a out God?"

[I Have Questions]

But by all means, share your free thought and questions as though they are mainstream Mormon thought in your next Elder's Quorum or High Priest meeting, then see where it gets you.

The High Priest Quorum got disbanded some years ago.

“Tonight we announce a significant restructuring of our Melchizedek Priesthood quorums to accomplish the work of the Lord more effectively,” President Nelson said during the general priesthood session in the Conference Center on Temple Square. “In each ward, the high priests and the elders will now be combined into one elders quorum . . . [and] the composition of [the stake high priests] quorum will be based on current priesthood callings.”

[MG 2.0]

But by all means, share your free thought and questions as though they are mainstream Mormon thought in your next Elder's Quorum or High Priest meeting, then see where it gets you.

I'm not suggesting that everything one thinks about is shared in Sunday Worship meetings. Those meetings are for the edification of all Saints. Outside of the Sunday service one is just as free as any other to explore and investigate the world we live in. Including religion, philosophy, psychology, etc.

My point was that critics end up self limiting themselves as much as anyone if they either disregard the possible edification and meaning of religious worship and service or they take God out of the picture. This disallows them certain avenues of continued learning and progress in understanding themselves and others along with knowledge/truth that might have purposeful meaning in their lives and those they love.

Regards,
MG