LDS

[Empress]

Ah! Someone who has been giving actual answers!

How does the chain of Gods going back figure into it?

Is there any discussion about the nature of the God who is worshiped by the God who created this universe?

Our God has a God, who has a God, who has a God. Clearly the laws by which OUR God is bound came from somewhere. Where did they come from and who dictated them?

If deity is lineage, who is the "Adam" of the Gods? Who is the first God and is there anyone who worships him?

Where did the first God come from?

That's one that they just don't answer, at least not anyone I've ever talked to about it. It's truly Gods all the way back, and without any end. You can ask them, "well, where did it all start?" and the general idea is going to be that it's everlasting, and it's just something that we can't grasp as humans.

Essentially, I think they know that it doesn't make sense so they assert the limits of the human mind. Also, they keep sticking to the line that you see Janadele bringing up--this life is about following god's commandments and growing as a person, not about earlier gods that are not directly associated with us. Of course, some of us believe that part of growing as a person entails increasing our knowledge of everything, including cosmology, so understanding the origins of their god would help us in that endeavor, but apparently that's the wrong way to look at things if you want to be a good Mormon.

 

[godless dave]

Such matters are of very little importance nor interest to me,

The accuracy of the Book of Mormon isn't important or interesting to you?

 

[halleyscomet]

That's one that they just don't answer, at least not anyone I've ever talked to about it. It's truly Gods all the way back, and without any end. You can ask them, "well, where did it all start?" and the general idea is going to be that it's everlasting, and it's just something that we can't grasp as humans.

Essentially, I think they know that it doesn't make sense so they assert the limits of the human mind. Also, they keep sticking to the line that you see Janadele bringing up--this life is about following god's commandments and growing as a person, not about earlier gods that are not directly associated with us. Of course, some of us believe that part of growing as a person entails increasing our knowledge of everything, including cosmology, so understanding the origins of their god would help us in that endeavor, but apparently that's the wrong way to look at things if you want to be a good Mormon.

Let me see if I grok this.

Let's say Janadele's oldest son is named Frank.

Frank ascends to Godhood and creates a universe.

Yahweh, the God Frank worships, would not have any involvement in the operation of Frank's universe, and the inhabitants of it would have no awareness of Yahweh, only Frank.

Frank would still be bound by the same laws and limitations that bind Yahweh.

Could Frank appeal to Yahweh for guidance and assistance?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe if Frank invited him to do so?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe without Frank's permission?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe even if Frank objects?

Is there additional training to become a God after you die? Simply making it though the Earthly trial seems poor preparation for creating an entire universe with no further guidance or training.

I get the impression that the official LDS answer to all those questions is "no one knows" but my curiosity about the cosmos requires me to ask such things.

 

[desertgal]

I get the impression that the official LDS answer to all those questions is "no one knows" but my curiosity about the cosmos requires me to ask such things.

Actually, I think the official LDS answer would be: "We aren't meant to know that or ask those questions."

 

[Empress]

Let me see if I grok this.

Let's say Janadele's oldest son is named Frank.

Frank ascends to Godhood and creates a universe.

Yahweh, the God Frank worships, would not have any involvement in the operation of Frank's universe, and the inhabitants of it would have no awareness of Yahweh, only Frank.

Frank would still be bound by the same laws and limitations that bind Yahweh.

Could Frank appeal to Yahweh for guidance and assistance?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe if Frank invited him to do so?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe without Frank's permission?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe even if Frank objects?

Is there additional training to become a God after you die? Simply making it though the Earthly trial seems poor preparation for creating an entire universe with no further guidance or training.

I get the impression that the official LDS answer to all those questions is "no one knows" but my curiosity about the cosmos requires me to ask such things.

I think that Frank interacts with Yahweh--that's part of making it to godhood status, the ability to interact with Yahweh--but that any interaction that Yahweh would want to make with Frank's universes would be be indirectly through Frank. Kind of like Frank takes over the family company from his dad when he retires, and is the new President. He might still get some advice from his dad, but dad doesn't have anything to do with the company any longer, so Frank would incorporate any changes.

Whether Yahweh could interact with Frank's world if Frank turns out to be half-witted, or perhaps, given Yahweh's nature, just not evil enough, I can't say, but I'm betting they'll say that he won't b/c of Eternal Law.

Keep in mind that there are thousands (millions?) of other gods that Yahweh is busy interacting with beside Frank, so he's probably busy. And that doesn't even take into account all the wives Yahweh has up there that probably keep him busy, too.

 

[Empress]

Actually, I think the official LDS answer would be: "We aren't meant to know that or ask those questions."

Yeah, this was probably a better and more accurate answer than mine.

 

[pakeha]

Such has never been LDS Doctrine.

The references made by Brigham Young regarding Adam were not referring to Michael, who was the "Adam" for our earth.
There is not just one Adam or one earth.

jsfisher: Yes, Michael helped to organise this earth under the direction of Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father, and had progressed to possess the authority to lead us with power and righteousness in the pre mortal war against Lucifer. Yes, Michael is the Adam of this earth and therefore our mortal ancestor. The Godhead of this earth comprises of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. There is really no need for those who do not accept LDS Scriptures to delve into the depths of Eternal Laws that Brigham Young was conversant and familiar with. The fundamental teachings and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are contained in the authorised LDS Scriptures.

Listen to Professor Steven Jones on K-Talk radio AM630 (Utah) on Thursday, 11 April. Steve will discuss his research on Equus in America before Columbus. 3pm - 5pm or so. This should be of interest to posters in this thread obsessed with this topic.

Would this be the same Professor Emeritus Stephen Jones who claims that the WTC Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition?

Do you suppose the transcript of his presentation will be available?

ETA: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=1&id=246
and see: http://archives.exmormon.org/An-example-of-Book-of-Mormon-evidences-and-the-scientific-method
and: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5178
and:http://archaeology.about.com/od/frauds/a/spencer_lake.htm

I did not know the Spencer Lake story.

Apparently FAIR isn't interested in truth enough to take the steps necessary to correct their error.

Lying for the Lord.

I wonder if Janadele thinks it's okay to lie if it promotes other people's faith?

I have the feeling that would depend on the 'burning in the bosom' of the individual.

 

[halleyscomet]

Actually, I think the official LDS answer would be: "We aren't meant to know that or ask those questions."

Yeah, this was probably a better and more accurate answer than mine.

Thank you.

There aren't many Mormon philosophers, are there?

I think I find that more troubling than anything else I've heard about Mormonism. The acceptance of having such things left completely unexplained feels like an insult to the human mind and our capacity for curiosity, reason and understanding. I think that's what offends me most about the more hard line extremist denominations. The willful acceptance and encouragement of ignorance is the kernel behind everything about religion that retards progress and hinders the advancement of humanity.

Humanists don't know what came before the Big Bang, but that doesn't stop the drive to learn what it could have been.

 

[Wolrab]

Blue Mountain, such a statement could only be given by a false prophet.

Exactly. Just like every pronouncement from every religious leader.

 

[Empress]

Thank you.

There aren't many Mormon philosophers, are there?

I think I find that more troubling than anything else I've heard about Mormonism. The acceptance of having such things left completely unexplained feels like an insult to the human mind and our capacity for curiosity, reason and understanding. I think that's what offends me most about the more hard line extremist denominations. The willful acceptance and encouragement of ignorance is the kernel behind everything about religion that retards progress and hinders the advancement of humanity.

Humanists don't know what came before the Big Bang, but that doesn't stop the drive to learn what it could have been.

Agreed. For a long time I wasn't sure if it was just my home, which was dysfunctional, and in which you weren't allowed to ask questions or think for yourself, or if it was a simply part of Mormonism. Later I decided that if you were allowed to question, you probably would be LDS, since the whole thing is so asinine, and asinine in a provable way since it's comparably new.

I think Cat Tale is uncommon in that she approaches her faith with thought and reason. She's unusual in my experience. Unfortunately, while Janadele is perhaps more robot-like than most LDS, she's closer to the average Mormon that I know than is Cat Tale.

 

[RandFan]

Or no longer allowing polygamy. Major splinter groups as a result of that prophetic announcement.

Janadele, what's the difference between lifting the prohibition on blacks and the priesthood, or outlawing plural marriage, and allowing women to hold the priesthood?

Thank you. Great point. In fact, that's actually a better example though both are significant in their own right.

 

[RandFan]

Agreed. For a long time I wasn't sure if it was just my home, which was dysfunctional, and in which you weren't allowed to ask questions or think for yourself, or if it was a simply part of Mormonism. Later I decided that if you were allowed to question, you probably would be LDS, since the whole thing is so asinine, and asinine in a provable way since it's comparably new.

I think Cat Tale is uncommon in that she approaches her faith with thought and reason. She's unusual in my experience. Unfortunately, while Janadele is perhaps more robot-like than most LDS, she's closer to the average Mormon that I know than is Cat Tale.

I suspect there are more like Cat than they would let on. After I left I've met Mormons who admitted they don't believe in Mormonism but don't want to rock the boat. I guess it depends on your family situation and personal willingness to deal with confrontations.

I would guess that there are a lot of Mormons who reject much or most of the official history of Mormonism. But I'll concede that's speculative.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you.

There aren't many Mormon philosophers, are there?

Great question. Since leaving I've met a number of Mormons who take a dim view of philosophy. My former bishop referred to philosophy as being the "lowly wisdom of humans" (1 Corinthians 3:19). "Mormons receive their wisdom direct from god" he assured me. I told him that BYU teaches philosophy and he argued that was to ensure accreditation.

So I don't know what the official Mormon take on philosophy is but I don't think there are many Mormon philosophers. Just my guess.

 

[tsig]

Blue Mountain, such a statement could only be given by a false prophet.

How would you know they're a false prophet?

Are you claiming to have more inspiration than your prophets?

 

[tsig]

God changed his mind about blacks. Why not about women as well?

Your very faith dictates that if the LDS hierarchy agrees that the revelation is from God, then it WAS from God, and you would have no right to question it.

You would be in a Catch-22. If you believed that a revelation making women equal to men in the church was from a false prophet, you would have no authority to tell anyone or have your words heeded, except by the people who believed the revelation was genuine. The very act of taking your arguments seriously would require accepting the revelation against which you just argued.

Exactly, to declare a false prophet and keep believing in prophecy you have to be a better prophet than the false prophet.

Schism anyone?


This is why religions leave many offshoots in their wake. Once people get the idea that anyone can talk to god anyone does.

 

[RandFan]

Your very faith dictates that if the LDS hierarchy agrees that the revelation is from God, then it WAS from God, and you would have no right to question it.

You would be in a Catch-22. If you believed that a revelation making women equal to men in the church was from a false prophet, you would have no authority to tell anyone or have your words heeded, except by the people who believed the revelation was genuine. The very act of taking your arguments seriously would require accepting the revelation against which you just argued.

Yep, and this was exactly the response of Bruce R. Mckonkie (an arguable racist).

source Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.[1]

At least he knows who butters his bread. Sorry for the cynicism but I've little reason to think otherwise. The guy is evil IMO.

 

[tsig]

Let me see if I grok this.

Let's say Janadele's oldest son is named Frank.

Frank ascends to Godhood and creates a universe.

Yahweh, the God Frank worships, would not have any involvement in the operation of Frank's universe, and the inhabitants of it would have no awareness of Yahweh, only Frank.

Frank would still be bound by the same laws and limitations that bind Yahweh.

Could Frank appeal to Yahweh for guidance and assistance?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe if Frank invited him to do so?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe without Frank's permission?

Could Yahweh intervene in Frank's universe even if Frank objects?

Is there additional training to become a God after you die? Simply making it though the Earthly trial seems poor preparation for creating an entire universe with no further guidance or training.

I get the impression that the official LDS answer to all those questions is "no one knows" but my curiosity about the cosmos requires me to ask such things.

Since we're told that the way things are working in this world is the result of Eternal Law then it seems to me that Frank has to create humans, watch them fall, redeem them and have the truth lost till a Joe Smith does the hat trick.

To admit that things could be different in Frank's world implies things could be different in this world and I don't think most Mormons consider that possible.

 

[GT/CS]

So is it stated anywhere in the BoM that the mormon god is or is not the top dog?

 

[Janadele]

From my previous posts it should be clear that there are differing degrees of knowledge... both amongst the LDS membership, and also in what is considered necessary and appropriate to discuss publicly, or to teach to the general membership. One does not teach higher degrees of learning and knowledge to those who cannot understand nor accept the basic fundamentals.

 

[Empress]

From my previous posts it should be clear that there are differing degrees of knowledge... both amongst the LDS membership, and also in what is considered necessary and appropriate to discuss publicly, or to teach to the general membership. One does not teach higher degrees of learning and knowledge to those who cannot understand nor accept the basic fundamentals.

Why not? Does your god think that his creations are too stupid to understand cosmology?

And how do know that women not holding the priesthood is simply temporarily being withheld for reasons that your god doesn't see fit to tell you at the this time? Line upon line, precept upon precept, you know.