LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
So is it stated anywhere in the BoM that the mormon god is or is not the top dog?

That sort of thing, if it's addressed is probably more in the D&C. The BoM is a made-up hx of the people of the Americas. I've never read the D&C (and have no intention of it) so I can't tell you for sure. But it might also simply have been something that isn't in the scriptures, but simply added to the body of Mormon work over the years via "revelation" from the prophets.
 
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.
I would add that they need someone to play the part of Satan and Christ and that there needs to be a pre-mortal war in heaven. All of these things seem critical to the narrative.
 
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.
As one who was a missionary, sunday school teacher, home teacher, etc., I can say that I know the "higher degrees of learning". IMO: Janadele, that's a load of nonsense.
 
So is it stated anywhere in the BoM that the mormon god is or is not the top dog?

That sort of thing, if it's addressed is probably more in the D&C. The BoM is a made-up hx of the people of the Americas. I've never read the D&C (and have no intention of it) so I can't tell you for sure. But it might also simply have been something that isn't in the scriptures, but simply added to the body of Mormon work over the years via "revelation" from the prophets.
It's a great question. I have read the D&C but don't remember anything of the sort. It's been a long time since I've read it though. Can't say conclusively.
 
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.

Yeah, you wanna make sure the fish is truly hooked before you boat 'em.
 
Can we return to the Adam/God topic? I've done a little digging, and I think it is fair to say Brigham Young did teach that Adam was God, but the idea is mostly rejected by main-stream Mormonism.

When did Young's teachings fall into disfavor? Was it then, when he was actually preaching his Adam/God doctrine, or did it evolve later?

Besides this and the whole black priesthood thing, are there other teachings of Young that have suffered a similar fate?

What was the definition of false prophet, again?
 
Steve is scheduled to talk about the horses-in-America research on 11 April and the 9/11 research on 22 April (3pm-6pm), both on K-talk, 630AM radio.


So, is "Steve" the same Professor Emeritus Stephen Jones who claims that the WTC Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition? The same Professor Emeritus Stephen Jones who was taken in by the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax?
 
halley... our task at hand is to complete our earthly trial. We are given the Scriptures as a guide. Our Spirit is able to recognise essential truths known to us in our pre mortal existence. But the full knowledge our Spirit had achieved before our earthly birth is withheld. We will remember all when we pass from mortality... and no doubt will mourn the choices made, and the consequent opportunities for eternal advancement lost.


All right, if this earthly trial is the most important thing, let's discuss it.

Let's suppose for the moment that the LDS narratives about how to achieve a "high score" in your earthly trial are correct. That performing LDS rituals and believing LDS stories are the way to do it.

For a person born into and LDS family and LDS community, the personal qualities needed to excel in the earthly trial include obedience to authority especially to parents and to the LDS clergy they interact with, inclination to yield to social pressure by going along with community practices, and passive acceptance of the truth of stories even when, as in the case of ancient horses in America, they appear to contradict what we actually see in the world.

But imagine a person born into a different family and community religion. For that person to excel in the earthly trial, she would need completely opposite personal qualities: disobedience of the family and religious community she was born into, inclination to resist social pressure by seeking a different faith, and doubt of the truth of the stories her born religion tells. She then has to act completely contrary those qualities to accept the LDS version, while maintaining them regarding every other religion she encounters.

To say this is unfair -- which of course it is, in spades -- is only scratching the surface of the problem here. The deeper problem is that this entire elaborate earthly trial is testing for different characteristics for different people. It rewards a passive obedient credulous incurious child born into an LDS family, but also rewards a rebellious disobedient incredulous curious child born into a Buddhist family (if that person made the right guesses later in life). It's no better than if the way to excel in the earthly trial were to complete a crossword puzzle written in Chinese. For a Chinese person, it would be a test of crossword puzzle solving ability, but for everyone else, it would be mostly a test of amount of interest in Chinese crossword puzzles among all the other potentially interesting matters in the world.

I have a hard time believing that the Creator of the universe would devise a trial that is so completely ineffective at determining what it's supposed to determine, the actual worth of a person as proven by how they lived their life. It makes no sense. Maybe this might have escaped notice in older times when people in general sucked at inventing effective tests for things (such as, believing that ability to win a combat or ability to resist torture were good tests of criminal guilt or innocence), but it's glaringly obvious in today's world.

Therefore, I propose an alternate explanation that has the advantage of not making an infinite hierarchy of creator gods look as incompetent and ridiculous as the judge of a medieval witch trial. Let's now suppose instead that the LDS story of how the earthly trial is judged is as wrong and arbitrary as the afterlife stories of every other religion. Instead, what is being tested is how much regard, empathy, and love you have for your fellow mortal human beings.

Wouldn't it be marvelous and appropriate if your score in your earthly trial, the exaltedness of your position in the afterlife, depended directly on how many other people you wished and expected to share that position with? Those with prideful and selfish expectations of being "the elite" would actually be the opposite. They're the ones who, in their earthly trial, learned the least from mortal life, held their fellow humans in the least regard, tried to convert them instead of love and respect them, cast the seeds of their charity and goodwill upon the narrowest stoniest ground.

Now the trial finally makes sense. The heavenly pyramid you imagine is inverted. God is at the base, with everyone; not an exalted former mortal who climbed upon a high throne but a Holy Spirit that encompasses all, loves all. Those who imagine themselves the most elite, the most separate from everyone, the apex of the pyramid, are the farthest from God.

If you don't find this explanation at least more plausible than the "LDS are afterlife elite" version the LDS church teaches, read the Parable of Workers in the Vineyard. "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." The Vineyard represents the Kingdom of Heaven. (The parable says so explicitly.) The first hired erroneously regard themselves as the elite, not accepting others as deserving of the same reward. Jesus rebukes them for their envy and lack of charity. It's pretty clear.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Can we return to the Adam/God topic? I've done a little digging, and I think it is fair to say Brigham Young did teach that Adam was God, but the idea is mostly rejected by main-stream Mormonism.

When did Young's teachings fall into disfavor? Was it then, when he was actually preaching his Adam/God doctrine, or did it evolve later?

Besides this and the whole black priesthood thing, are there other teachings of Young that have suffered a similar fate?
What was the definition of false prophet, again?

Blood atonement isn't much in favor nowadays.
 
As one who was a missionary, sunday school teacher, home teacher, etc., I can say that I know the "higher degrees of learning". IMO: Janadele, that's a load of nonsense.

Was there any answer to the question 'What happened to all the people born before Joe Smith started pulling god out of a hat?' They couldn't have known all these truths so really don't have much of a chance for celestial glory.


Guess some one has to take out god's garbage.
 
Can we return to the Adam/God topic? I've done a little digging, and I think it is fair to say Brigham Young did teach that Adam was God, but the idea is mostly rejected by main-stream Mormonism.

When did Young's teachings fall into disfavor? Was it then, when he was actually preaching his Adam/God doctrine, or did it evolve later?

Besides this and the whole black priesthood thing, are there other teachings of Young that have suffered a similar fate?
Blood atonement is the other major bugaboo. By blood atonement I don't mean vicarious redemption through Christ. I mean the Mormon concept.

What was the definition of false prophet, again?
Not much of a prophet if one cannot foresee that his teachings would be disowned by the future church?
 
Last edited:
Was there any answer to the question 'What happened to all the people born before Joe Smith started pulling god out of a hat?' They couldn't have known all these truths so really don't have much of a chance for celestial glory.
Ah, Smith had actually thought of that, see baptism of the dead.
 
Ah, Smith had actually thought of that, see baptism of the dead.

I knew about baptism for the dead but I thought that that just got you in on the first rung and not into the running for god status. Besides doesn't the idea that you can chose after you're dead rather contradict the idea of this life as a trial of faith?

I'd think that a lifelong devout Mormon wouldn't like some Johnny come lately new baptized saint who had lived as a dissolute sex mad sot getting ahead of him in the god line.
 
Steve is scheduled to talk about the horses-in-America research on 11 April and the 9/11 research on 22 April (3pm-6pm), both on K-talk, 630AM radio.
So that would be yes, he is the nutjob who thinks the WTC was destroyed with a controlled demolition.
 
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.

No. Nothing in your previous post provides clarity. I see nothing other than unsupported assertions and the rather odd belief that we either should or will simply take your statements at face value.
 
Ah, Smith had actually thought of that, see baptism of the dead.

Well, THAT was unsettling breakfast reading.
Still, better to know.

From the wiki
"..Initially, women could be baptized for dead men, and vice versa; this, however, was changed in order to ensure that the person being baptized for a dead man could also be ordained on their behalf to the priesthood.[35]"
 
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.


This is exactly the same explanation one would hear from a scientologist.


Yeah, you wanna make sure the fish is truly hooked before you boat 'em.


Yep.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly the same explanation one would hear from a scientologist.





Yep.

I think the milk before meat goes back to Paul in Christianity but all cults generally have outer and inner secrets. I'm sure Joe Smith had great fun inventing higher and bigger hoops for his sheep to jump thru.
 
This is exactly the same explanation one would hear from a scientologist. ...

Yes, oh Pharaoh.
Or from any one of a number of depressingly popular cults out there.
The scope of the damage those milk before meat apologists do is horrifying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom