Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
You may be laboring under a misconception...
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
You may be laboring under a misconception...
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
(emphasisadded)
I wonder if the word you meant, here, was "godhead".
I have, as you so kindly suggested, been pondering. I realize that you are on record as making free to disagree with, even contradict, the words of an "elder" of your club; I further realize that it is unlikely that you will address this.
Be that as it may, is not Joseph Smith considered an "authority" on mormon doctrine? He said:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng
Does that not indicate that mormons believe (or that, at least, Joseph Smith, Jr. believes that mormons believe) that 'god' was once a man, and that humans can "become" 'gods'? (Not to mention clearly stating that there are, and have been, more than one 'god'.)
Is not Brigham Young considered an "authority" on mormon doctrine? He said:
And:
Does that not indicate that he, at least, believed, and preached, that 'god' was once a man, that people can "become" 'gods', and that there are, and have been, more than one 'god'?
Was not Milton R. Young an "apostle" of your sect? Does that make him an "authority"? He said:
Was not LeGrand Richards also one of your "apostles"? He said:
Others in your bunch have made similar statements.
Whom shall I believe is telling the truth about mormon dogma?
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.1-24?lang=eng#0
Start around 19.
Start around 19.
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Again, I'm puzzled. What is the dispute over the Mormon godhood/godhead (pantheon, what-have-you)?
I'm having trouble following the quote trail back to find where Skyrider defined godhood. (A little help with a post number maybe, Skyrider?) But this is so basic, I could give an LDS-approved answer in a heartbeat.
In fact, I'm up early this morning, so bored and frustrated with this thread, that I'm going to give a Mormon-centric devil's advocate answer to godhood, godhead and inspiration that I honestly think 1) would be backed by the average LDS member as reasonably accurate and not offensive and 2) is a far stronger explanation or debating point on inspiration and the LDS church than what's been presented to far. And I'm going to do it without going to links, just off the top of my head.
He's working without a net, folks! Come watch him fall and die in a pool of blood!
Okay. Ahem. Here tis. My attempt at an off-the-cuff pro-LDS summary of the topic for the average non-LDS member:
The godhead of this earth is God the father, his son Jesus and the holy ghost, as described in the KJV Christian Bible as well as the additional LDS scriptures (with minor errors in translation and interpretation). Though the three members of the godhead are separate entities, they are united in purpose.
Prophets on earth are not gods, but have the authority to speak for God in the sphere over which they're placed, so the president of the church can receive revelaton for the whole church, while local leaders can only receive revelation for their own churches, down to fathers receiving only for their own families, for example. Each person can also receive revelation for him/herself through prayer.
The revelation to a prophet can vary from something official and Big, that gets put in the next edition of the scriptures (The Doctrine & Covenants) to a generic statement at general conference about the church helping with hurricane cleanup or something. The prophet/president can also speak casually without giving revelation. The Big statements rarely happen now that the church is becoming established--maybe every few decades.
Godhood is available to all worthy men and women after death, though they will have their own worlds to rule over in family groups and not interfere with this world. This is known, but not discussed much in detail, because the main issue is to lead a worthy life here. That's hard enough, but if you do that, your progression will happen and you will be guided along it successfully.
As far as inspiration of non-LDS members... All worthy people on earth, and all religions, contain some truth, and the closer they are toward truth, the more the LDS godhead will help them and inspire them. So the LDS god has been behind goodness even before the restoration, and people can feel his influence even without deliberately knowing of him or even believing in him.
The LDS god or godhood's influence is not something that can be defined beyond a certain degree. It's more a vague sense that goodness, beauty, fairness, love, and all those things LDS members are supposed to strive for, are also being striven for by others before or outside their religion, and that effort would be fostered and supported by the LDS godhead wherever it appears.
I'm having trouble following the quote trail back to find where Skyrider defined godhood. (A little help with a post number maybe, Skyrider?) But this is so basic, I could give an LDS-approved answer in a heartbeat.
In fact, I'm up early this morning, so bored and frustrated with this thread, that I'm going to give a Mormon-centric devil's advocate answer to godhood, godhead and inspiration that I honestly think 1) would be backed by the average LDS member as reasonably accurate and not offensive and 2) is a far stronger explanation or debating point on inspiration and the LDS church than what's been presented to far. And I'm going to do it without going to links, just off the top of my head.
He's working without a net, folks! Come watch him fall and die in a pool of blood!
Okay. Ahem. Here tis. My attempt at an off-the-cuff pro-LDS summary of the topic for the average non-LDS member:
The godhead of this earth is God the father, his son Jesus and the holy ghost, as described in the KJV Christian Bible as well as the additional LDS scriptures (with minor errors in translation and interpretation). Though the three members of the godhead are separate entities, they are united in purpose.
Prophets on earth are not gods, but have the authority to speak for God in the sphere over which they're placed, so the president of the church can receive revelaton for the whole church, while local leaders can only receive revelation for their own churches, down to fathers receiving only for their own families, for example. Each person can also receive revelation for him/herself through prayer.
The revelation to a prophet can vary from something official and Big, that gets put in the next edition of the scriptures (The Doctrine & Covenants) to a generic statement at general conference about the church helping with hurricane cleanup or something. The prophet/president can also speak casually without giving revelation. The Big statements rarely happen now that the church is becoming established--maybe every few decades.
Godhood is available to all worthy men and women after death, though they will have their own worlds to rule over in family groups and not interfere with this world. This is known, but not discussed much in detail, because the main issue is to lead a worthy life here. That's hard enough, but if you do that, your progression will happen and you will be guided along it successfully.
As far as inspiration of non-LDS members... All worthy people on earth, and all religions, contain some truth, and the closer they are toward truth, the more the LDS godhead will help them and inspire them. So the LDS god has been behind goodness even before the restoration, and people can feel his influence even without deliberately knowing of him or even believing in him.
The LDS god or godhood's influence is not something that can be defined beyond a certain degree. It's more a vague sense that goodness, beauty, fairness, love, and all those things LDS members are supposed to strive for, are also being striven for by others before or outside their religion, and that effort would be fostered and supported by the LDS godhead wherever it appears.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I appreciate your honesty and directness. srFF seemed to take exception to the "...as 'god' was..." couplet.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10337924#post10337924
Wherein srFF responded to a question by delivering himself of the opinion that I know nothing about mormon theology, but declined to explain; stating that mormon doctrine "...holds that there is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost..." without addressing the arminian nature of the "godhead" so described.
Here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10338562#post10338562
srFF seemed (to me) to be referring to the "godhead" he described; if he did, indeed, mean the "godhood" you describe, he seems to be disagreeing with you.
Am I mistaken in understanding that your description of "godhood" encompasses people "becoming" 'gods', with the inescapable implication that there are, or have been and will be, more than one 'god'?
That was the issue I raised, to which srFF has not meaningfully responded.
I appreciate your summary.
Personally, I find it no more persuasive than any other apologetics, but I do appreciate it.
Forgive me, but this seems to be no more than a case of wanting to eat your cake and have it, too. You seem to be saying that, in your opinion, any work of goodness I do, or any art my partners works, is "inspired" by the "LDS godhead", whether I know it or not.
Does this apply to artists who (for instance) deny the "LDS godhead" (preferring, as an example, a more canonic and less arminian 'god')? Does it also apply to (for instance) artists who practice the love that dare not try to reach a low G in concert?
And do you, personally, hold that your opinion about "inspiration" from the "LDS godhead" is evidence that "divine inspiration" actually exists?
Thanks for your post.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Last edited:
First, yes I want to thank Pup for all the research and for presenting much more clearly than Skyrider the ideas probably involved. And I recognize that Pup is not presenting his own ideas here. But yes, this exactly having your cake and eating it too. Once one assumes that all good comes from the LDS god, whether the individual knows or it not, then you have successfully monopolized the argument. If one assumes this, there is no real counter response. If all good comes from the LDS god, then even people who think that they are inspired by Shiva are just misunderstanding the source of their inspiration. It even applies to atheists: they are achieving god's goals even if they don't know of god. Pretty clever, yes? And of course if they do evil, and claim to be inspired by god, then they are wrong. By definition,
Except the same argument can be applied to anything one can imagine: all good comes from Shiva, all good comes from pink unicorns, all good comes from our Martian reptilian overlords, all good comes from the thoughts I personally broadcast to the world as a whole; you just don't realize it. A great "gotcha" if you don't demand any proof.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Thanks for clearing up the quote trail. As far as I know, you're absolutely correct. LDS theology tends to talk about gods of this earth, meaning that the only gods important to us are the ones who created us here, but even then, it gets complicated. In the first thread, the question came up whether God's wive(s) were godesses of this earth under Mormon theology, and there was some disagreement (link to earlier post).
The other worlds and other potential gods, and our future godhood, are equally vague if not moreso, but I don't think the idea has ever been repudiated and I believe it's still a part of standard church doctrine, though not emphasized for the reason I noted in the other post.
Same here.
Yes. I think it probably sprang from the fact that the LDS church was so new, it had to draw converts from and integrate with other established religions.
On the one hand, it could and did say, "You're all wrong and a bunch of heathen sinners," but on the other hand, it was nice for the Methodist or Catholic congregation to move in wholesale to the growing city of Salt Lake and bring with them their money, industry, population etc. etc., as long as they didn't interfere. Living in semi-hostile holier-than-thou isolation hadn't worked out very well in Missouri and the east.
I'm guessing that it's all kept vague enough for people to believe what they want, since the goal is ecumenical warm fuzzies, with an emphasis on god helping good people. It's why they're nice to me, as an atheist. My wife's home and visiting teachers are coming out for a visit in an hour, and we get along fine for regular chit-chat, agree on the more bland humanitarian stuff, and I just ignore them when they pray with her as if they were talking about some mutual friend I didn't know.
I personally think divine inspiration from any source is bunkum, because of course there's no divinity and therefore nothing to inspire anyone, and obviously that also means there's no LDS godhead or godhood. Religious people of any stripe are all too blind or egotistical to realize it's just an illusion or delusion within the human brain which makes us think we've been inspired from a magical outside force, when there is no outside force and no magic other than the wonders of human consciousness as a emergent property of the brain.
Giordano said:
What he said.
I especially agree with your assessment of the clever little built-in gotcha which the LDS church and other similar religions have created: "It even applies to atheists: they are achieving god's goals even if they don't know of god. Pretty clever, yes? And of course if they do evil, and claim to be inspired by god, then they are wrong."
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
LDS goes one better though.
Don't forget that in the LDS ontology, every human who has ever lived and will ever live started in Heaven and chose their life they are born to - regardless of how terrible or great that life is and regardless of what their beliefs end up becoming.
So not only do they vaguely lump everyone into their belief, but they also specifically (by consequence) claim that an atheist started in Heaven and already knew their god and chose - before birth - to become an atheist after traveling through the veil of knowledge because that's what they needed to struggle with to grow more into their divine purpose.
Last edited:
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Excellent point. That can truly be used for evil, if it's applied further, as a way of pointing out that every starving African or child with cancer or battered wife chose to be born into that life. But admittedly it can also be used as a way of empowerment, explaining to someone that they chose their own life as a challenge and therefore they had some control, rather than being a helpless pawn of bad luck.
That sort of empowerment only works if one uses it on oneself, as a way of convincing oneself that one is gutsy and brave enough to handle whatever comes one's way. It turns evil if it's a way to put down others who must have asked for their troubles. The LDS theological safeguard against dismissing others' suffering is the same as in any Christian religion--love one's neighbor, what would Jesus do to help others, etc., and it does seem to work. I've not found Mormons to be more indifferent to anyone else's suffering than the population at large, and in fact they seem more ready to help than average.
It can also be a way of reconciling mixed-faith families, because again of the problem with it being a new religion. Every human also gets that second chance, where they get to see the truth after death and once again make up their mind. When I'm shown the entire Mormon theology is true after my death, surely even the most skeptical person like me will be ready to shed my atheism and be baptised, and then I'll be as good as any faithful Mormon. So in the afterlife, my wife needn't worry about me down in hell while she's being sealed to whatever husband works out best for her, and the slogan that families can be together forever still holds true.
I usually find that any religion which has survived has also survived such questioning and been carefully honed to meet the needs of its average adherents. It may require a large dose of NOMA or cognitive dissonance or what-have-you, but there's an answer waiting that appeals to enough of the target market to keep the religion going. Because it's relatively new with unique needs, one can see directly how the LDS church has dealt with such unique issues, and it's a fascinating study.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Well, THAT was an interesting email exchange.
This guy has contacted me to ask if he can use some of the content I've written on this forum in a study guide he's writing about Nephi's Bow. Apparently he was really taken with my interpretation and wants to expose other Mormons to it. To do this he needs to recast it as coming from a Mormon voice, himself, and he wanted my permission to do that to avoid accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement.
If he actually publishes the thing, I'll have stumbled into the role of ghost writer for a Book of Mormon study guide. We even discussed a sales threshold where I'd get a percentage of the royalties.
The first draft is going to be the basis of his sermon this Sunday.
So, uh, Skyrider44 and Janadele, thank you. Apparently the research I've done to intelligently argue with the two of you has resulted in me having a strong enough foundation in Mormon apologetic thinking to start work as a Mormon apologist.
This guy has contacted me to ask if he can use some of the content I've written on this forum in a study guide he's writing about Nephi's Bow. Apparently he was really taken with my interpretation and wants to expose other Mormons to it. To do this he needs to recast it as coming from a Mormon voice, himself, and he wanted my permission to do that to avoid accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement.
If he actually publishes the thing, I'll have stumbled into the role of ghost writer for a Book of Mormon study guide. We even discussed a sales threshold where I'd get a percentage of the royalties.
The first draft is going to be the basis of his sermon this Sunday.
So, uh, Skyrider44 and Janadele, thank you. Apparently the research I've done to intelligently argue with the two of you has resulted in me having a strong enough foundation in Mormon apologetic thinking to start work as a Mormon apologist.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Well, THAT was an interesting email exchange.
This guy has contacted me to ask if he can use some of the content I've written on this forum in a study guide he's writing about Nephi's Bow. Apparently he was really taken with my interpretation and wants to expose other Mormons to it. To do this he needs to recast it as coming from a Mormon voice, himself, and he wanted my permission to do that to avoid accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement.
If he actually publishes the thing, I'll have stumbled into the role of ghost writer for a Book of Mormon study guide. We even discussed a sales threshold where I'd get a percentage of the royalties.
The first draft is going to be the basis of his sermon this Sunday.
So, uh, Skyrider44 and Janadele, thank you. Apparently the research I've done to intelligently argue with the two of you has resulted in me having a strong enough foundation in Mormon apologetic thinking to start work as a Mormon apologist.
Any chance he'll explain about the horses?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
One anachronism at a time!
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Well, THAT was an interesting email exchange.
This guy has contacted me to ask if he can use some of the content I've written on this forum in a study guide he's writing about Nephi's Bow. Apparently he was really taken with my interpretation and wants to expose other Mormons to it. To do this he needs to recast it as coming from a Mormon voice, himself, and he wanted my permission to do that to avoid accusations of plagiarism or copyright infringement.
If he actually publishes the thing, I'll have stumbled into the role of ghost writer for a Book of Mormon study guide. We even discussed a sales threshold where I'd get a percentage of the royalties.
The first draft is going to be the basis of his sermon this Sunday.
So, uh, Skyrider44 and Janadele, thank you. Apparently the research I've done to intelligently argue with the two of you has resulted in me having a strong enough foundation in Mormon apologetic thinking to start work as a Mormon apologist.
From the link:
Two posters on this forum(JREF/ISF) are claiming to be members of the LDS Church. I do not believe them. I have not created an account on the forums myself because I see no value in joining the debate there. It goes in circles, like arguing with a toddler. Skyrider44 and Janadele, whom many think are the same person with two different accounts, pretend to be there to answer questions about the LDS church and her tenants. When a questions is asked, they evade, refuse to answer or respond with insults. Instead of righteous anger at sin, they respond with egomaniac self importance. From their attitudes you would think they were claiming to have translated the golden plates themselves. The questions being asked by the atheists are good ones. They deserve answers. Skyrider44 and Janadele are not giving them. They are presenting the worst possible face of Christian faith. If they are not doing it intentionally, then Satan is manipulating fools to do it for him.
Looks like even the Mormons don't want Jan and Sky.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Since it's horses for courses and the Indians had courses therefore they had horses.
That might be a horse of a different color.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
In all fairness to our dynamic duo of LDS dogma, Cornswalled is Mormon, but not LDS Mormon.
Have a scone for breakfast to honor the "True Scotsman" concept!
But I do agree that Skyrider44's amd Janadele's arguments haven't been helping the LDS cause any. It would be nice to at least be able to consider better responses to the questions that have been asked, if these hypothetic responses exist.